Professional Documents
Culture Documents
146697 July 23, 2002 "WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Fabre, his wife, merit any better regard. At first, she testified
LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE alias Nardo, that on the day of the rape incident, she had left their house
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of at four o'clock in the afternoon. Later, however, she changed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under her story by saying that she had left the house in the
vs.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as morning and returned only at ten o'clock that same morning,
LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE, accused-appellant.
amended by R.A. No. 7659 Section 11 thereof and staying home the whole day thereafter. In any event, in order
hereby imposes upon the accused Leonardo that alibi might prosper, it would not be enough for an
VITUG, J.: Fabre y Vicente alias Nardo the penalty of DEATH; accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the
to pay the victim Marilou Fabre civil indemnity in crime was committed; he would have to demonstrate
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) likewise that he could not have been physically present at
Leonardo Fabre was adjudged guilty by the Regional Trial PESOS and the costs."3 the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time
Court, Br. VI, of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, of raping his of its commission.7 Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at
own daughter Marilou Fabre, and he was sentenced to suffer all impossible nor even improbable for appellant to have
the extreme penalty of death. In this automatic review, the convicted accused assigned the
been at the crime scene.
following alleged errors committed by the court a quo.
Fabre was indicted in an Information that read:1 Upon the other hand, the evidently candid and
"I
straightforward testimony of Marilou should be more than
"That on or about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of enough to rebut the claim of innocence made by appellant.8
April 26, 1995 in the house of the accused located "THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
at Manat, Trento, Agusan del Sur, Philippines and GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-
On 26 April 1995, around four o'clock in the afternoon,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL.
Marilou Fabre was alone in their house in Barangay Manat,
above-named accused by force, threats and Trento, Agusan del Sur. Adela Fabre, her mother, had gone
intimidation, with lewd design, did then and there
"II to Purok 4 to buy fish while her siblings were out strolling.
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in After cleaning their yard, Marilou went to the adjacent palm
having sexual intercourse with his own daughter plantation, about fourteen to fifteen meters away from their
MARILOU FABRE, a girl thirteen (13) years of "ASSUMING IN ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED- house, to gather palm oil. Marilou had been gathering palm
age, of good reputation, against her will and APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT oil for about a minute when her father, appellant Leonardo
consent to the damage and prejudice of the said GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH Fabre, arrived. He suddenly gripped Marilou's hands and
victim consisting of moral, actual and SENTENCE UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANT forcibly dragged her towards the house. He closed the door
compensatory damages." DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION and removed his daughter's underwear. He took off his pants
TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL AGE OF MARILOU and asked Marilou to hold his sex organ. In tears, Marilou
FABRE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF
Accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. At the trial, obeyed her father. He then began touching the girl's breasts
THE ALLEGED RAPE."4
the prosecution presented the testimony of Marilou, that of and vagina. He forced her to lie down, mounted her and
Adela Fabre, her mother and the wife of the accused, and sought to insert his penis into her organ. Marilou cried in
that of Dr. Reinerio Jalalon, the doctor who examined The defense argues, rather desperately, that the testimony of pain. When after some time he still could not insert his penis
Marilou, along with the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. appellant should acquire added strength for the failure of the into Marilou's vagina, he applied coconut oil to lubricate his
Jalalon, the sworn statement of Adela, and the criminal prosecution to conduct cross-examination on him and to and his daughter's sexual organs. He was finally able to
complaint signed by both Marilou and Adela. The defense, present any rebuttal evidence. The cross-examination of a penetrate her. Once inside her, appellant made push and pull
during its turn in the presentation of evidence, countered with witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the movements until he was through with her. Appellant
the testimony of the accused himself. It also called Adela witness is called.5 The purpose of cross-examination is to threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody about the
Fabre back to the witness stand. test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness sexual encounter. The young girl's mother, Adela Fabre,
made on direct examination.6 The party against whom the arrived home about five o'clock that afternoon but,
witness testifies may deem any further examination remembering her father's threats, she kept mum about her
The trial court gave credence to the evidence given by the ordeal.
unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
prosecution, particularly to the narration of the young
theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what
complainant, expressing a quote from an observation once
would be believed is the perception of the court thereon.
made by this Tribunal in one of its decision that "even when The credibility of Marilou would not be all that difficult to
Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the
consumed with revenge, it (would) take a certain amount of discern from her narration that, as so described by the
testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a prosecution, "was full of graphic details which a young
he is not cross-examined by the other party.
story which (could) put her own father for the rest of his provincial girl could not possibly have concocted and which
remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her could only have come from someone who must have
family to a lifetime of shame." 2 Convinced that the accused The alibi of appellant itself would not appear to be deserving personally experienced a brutal rape assault." She testified:
committed the crime of rape on his own daughter, the trial of serious consideration. His account that at the time of the
judge disposed of the case thusly: alleged rape he was working at a coconut plantation, just "PROS. ENRIQUEZ:
about one kilometer away from the place of the crime, hardly
would amount to much. Nor would the testimony of Adela
"Q Now, Miss Marilou, can you recall where "Q While you were in your house after having "Q Now, did your father find it easy to insert
were you on April 26, 1995 at about 4:00 o'clock in been dragged by your father, what happened if his penis to your vagina?
the afternoon? any?
"A It [took] a long time, sir.
"A Yes, sir. "A He closed our house and he removed my
panty, sir.
"Q And did he use anything to facilitate the
"Q Where were you that time? insertion of his penis to your vagina?
"Q And after removing your panty, what did
your father do next?
"A In our house, sir. "A Yes, sir.
"A I was cleaning our yard, sir. "A He used coconut oil in his penis and also
"Q And what did you do next after holding his
in my vagina so that his penis can easily insert my
penis?
vagina, sir.
"Q How far is your yard where you were
doing some works from your house?
"A I was crying, sir.
"Q Now, while his penis was in your vagina,
can you tell this Honorable Court if he did anything
"A (Witness pointing a distance of around 2 to
"Q While you were crying what did your father also on top of you and while his penis was inside
3 meters.)
do? your vagina?
"Q And while you were crying what did your "Q So when did you had a chance to tell your
"A Because I was dragged by my father to
father do if any? mother about this incident?
our house I just went with him, sir.
"A He told me not to tell anybody because if I "A On May 1, 1995, sir.
will do it he will kill me, sir.
"Q And what did your mother do after you fact of minority of the victim, although specifically averred in
reported to her this incident? the information, has not been equally shown in evidence.
These qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority
are twin requirements that should be both alleged in the
"A She reported [the matter] to the Kagawad,
information and established beyond reasonable doubt during
sir."9
trial in order to sustain an imposition of the death
penalty.14 Neither an obvious minority of the victim nor the
It has been stressed quite often enough that the testimony of failure of the defense to contest her real age always excuse
a rape victim, who is young and still immature, deserves faith the prosecution from the desired proof required by
and credence10 for it simply would be unnatural for a young law.15 Judicial notice of the issue of age without the requisite
and innocent girl to invent a story of defloration, allow an hearing conducted under Section 3, Rule 129, of the Rules
examination of her private parts and thereafter subject of Court, would not be considered sufficient compliance with
herself and her family to the trauma of a public trial unless the law. The birth certificate of the victim or, in lieu thereof,
she indeed has spoken the truth.11 Most especially, a any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate,
daughter would not accuse her own father of such a serious school records and documents of similar nature, or credible
offense or allow herself to be perverted if she were not truly testimonial evidence, that can help establish the age of the
motivated by a desire to seek a just retribution for a violation victim should be presented.16 While the declaration of a
brazenly committed against her.12 victim as to her age, being an 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
Confirming Marilou's story was the medical report and is a totally different matter.17
testimony of Dr. Reinerio Jalalon, the government physician
stationed at the Bunawan District Hospital in Agusan del Sur,
who examined Marilou. Dr. Jalalon made these findings; viz: In the case at bar, the complainant claimed that she was 13
years old at the time of the incident. 18 Her mother stated,
however, that she was 14.19 The birth certificate of the victim,
"Abrasion at (L) labia minora at 3:00 o'clock at least already in her teens, was not presented to ascertain
position. her true age on the bare allegation that the document was
lost when their house burned down.20 No other document
"Vaginal smear (-) negative for spermatozoa."13 that could somehow help establish the real age of the victim
was submitted.
The doctor concluded that it was possible that genital
penetration on the victim did occur and that a penis could The Court, in sum, upholds the decision of the trial court
have caused the abrasion on the victim's labia minora. convicting Leonardo Fabre of the crime of rape but must
reduce, on account of insufficiency of proof on the qualifying
circumstance of minority of the victim, the penalty of death
There is merit, however, in the plea of the defense, to reclusion perpetua. With respect to the civil liability, the
seconded by the prosecution, that the penalty of death Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity but,
imposed by the trial court should be reduced to the penalty in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence, must additionally
of reclusion perpetua. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, order the payment of P50,000.00 moral damages21 and
as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, P20,000.00 exemplary damages.22
provides:
Appellant contends that his identification in open court by A Noontime, ma’m. Q You said that Johnny penetrated your private
Mayia was highly irregular.l^vvphi1.net Appellant points out part. With what instrument did he use in
that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man penetrating your private part?
Q So, when Johnny said, ‘Ako si Johnny,’ what did
wearing an orange t-shirt when the prosecutor asked Mayia
you do?
to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses that when A His penis, ma’m.
Mayia identified him in open court, she referred to him as a
man named "Johnny" and did not give any description or any A None, ma’m.
identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in Q What was he wearing at that time?
the cell when Mayia identified him after the police arrested
Q After that when Johnny said, ‘Ako si Johnny’,
him. Appellant bewails that the identification was not done A A black denim, ma’m.
what happened?
with the usual police line-up.
A He strangled (sinakal) me. Q When he used his penis in entering your private
Appellant’s contention is untenable. part, did he remove his pants?
A No, ma’m. A At Sulok, ma’m. the sexual assault leaves no doubt as to the correctness of
her identification for a man and woman cannot be physically
closer to each other than during the sexual act.24 Thus, even
Q What did he do with his pants? Q Sulok is a place?
if Mayia did not give the identifying marks of appellant, her
positive identification of appellant sufficed to establish clearly
A He brought out his penis, ma’m. A Yes, ma’m. the identity of her sexual assailant.
Q You mean to say Mayia, he lowered his pants? Q Do you have any companion when this man Appellant’s claim that the police improperly suggested to
introduced himself to you? Mayia to identify appellant is without basis. True, Mayia did
not identify appellant in a police line-up when Mayia
A Yes, ma’m. identified appellant in his cell. However, appellant, in his
A None, ma’m. testimony admitted that he had two other companions in his
Q What about you, were you wearing any panty? cell.25 Moreover, the Court has held that there is no law
Q How did he introduce himself to you? requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper
identification. Even without a police line-up, there could still
A Yes, ma’m. be a proper identification as long as the police did not
A The man introduced himself to me by saying, suggest such identification to the witnesses. 26 The records
‘Kilala mo ba ako? Hindi po. Ako si Johnny.’"20 are bereft of any indication that the police suggested to
Q What was your clothes at that time?
Mayia to identify appellant as the rapist.
The trial court further asked Mayia:
A A dress, ma’m.
Mayia’s identification in open court of appellant as her rapist
"Q You were talking of a certain Johnny. s this dispels any doubt as to the proper identification of appellant.
Q When his penis entered your vagina Mayia, did Mayia positively identified and pointed to appellant as her
Johnny in court now?
he remove your panty? rapist. We are satisfied that her testimony, by itself, is
sufficient identification of her rapist. As held in People v.
A Yes, sir. Marquez:27
A Yes, ma’m."19
Q Can you point to him? "xxx. Indeed, the revelation of an innocent child whose
The identity of appellant as the rapist has been
established by the clear, convincing and chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness
straightforward testimony of Mayia. During the A Yes, sir. of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo
trial, she testified as follows: the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent
testimony of the truth of her complaint. Stated differently, it is
Q Point to him. most improbable for a five-year old girl of tender years, so
"Q Mayia, there is a man sitting wearing orange t- innocent and so guileless as the herein offended party, to
shirt, do you know this man? brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man if it
A (Witness pointing to the person sitting at the
accused bench and when asked of his name were not true."
A Yes, ma’m. answered Jesus Perez)
In his Reply Brief, appellant contends that even assuming
Q Do you know his name? Q Is this Johnny whom you point to the person that the guilt of appellant has been proven beyond
whom you saw in that ‘Sulok?’ reasonable doubt, the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty. Appellant maintains that the death penalty cannot be
A Yes, ma’m. imposed on him for failure of the prosecution to prove
A Yes, sir." 21 Mayia’s age by independent evidence. Appellant points out
Q What is his name? that while Mayia’s birth certificate was duly marked during
Mayia’s simple, positive and straightforward recounting on the pre-trial, it was not presented and identified during the
the witness stand of her harrowing experience lends trial. Appellant asserts that Mayia’s minority must not only be
A Johnny, ma’m. specifically alleged in the Information but must also be
credence to her accusation. Her tender age belies any
allegation that her accusation was a mere invention impelled established beyond reasonable doubt during the
Q Why do you know him? by some ill-motive. As the Court has stressed in numerous trial.1awphi1.nét
cases, when a woman or a child victim says that she has
been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show Appellant’s argument deserves scant consideration.
A Because he introduced himself to me. that rape was indeed committed.22
Q Where did he introduced himself to you? At the pre-trial, the parties mutually worked out a satisfactory
Mayia had a clear sight of appellant’s face since the rape disposition of the criminal case. Appellant, assisted by
occurred at "noontime."23 Her proximity to appellant during
counsel, signed a Pre-Trial Agreement28 which, as If rape is qualified by any of the circumstances 37 warranting
incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order, stated that: the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity for
actual or compensatory damages is mandatory.38 Following
prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity is fixed at
"x x x.
P75,000.00. In addition, moral damages of P50,000.00
should also be awarded to the rape victim without need for
3. The victim in this case, Mayia P. Ponseca was born on pleading or proving it.39
23 May 1990 as evidenced by her birth certificate;
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 26, 1999 of the
x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal
Case No. RTC-2116-I, finding appellant Jesus S. Perez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape,
During the pre-trial, the prosecution marked in evidence sentencing him to suffer the death penalty,40 and ordering
Mayia’s birth certificate as Exhibit "A". 29 The prosecution him to pay the victim Mayia P. Ponseca the amount of
submitted its Offer of Evidence30 which included Exhibit "A", a P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
certified true copy of Mayia’s birth certificate. The trial court damages, is AFFIRMED in toto.
admitted Exhibit "A"31 without any objection from the defense.
SO ORDERED.
left anterior and the left mid roadside Herminio Mansueto and Roberto
axillary line up to the left 4th Descartin alias "Ruby" engaged in conversation. Pansing
intercostal space including all approached them and asked Mansueto if he would be
muscle underlying the skin interested in buying two of her pigs for P1,400.00. Mansueto
exposing the ribs. said "yes" and promised that he would be right back.
G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995
Cause of death: Internal Mansueto and Ruby meantime proceeded to the latter's
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, hemorrhage due to stab piggery. Joelito Descartin and his brother-in-law Rene were
vs. wound. also seen going to the place. After some time, Pansing
ANTONIO PLASENCIA y noticed Joelito take Mansueto's bicycle. Believing that
DESAMPARADO alias "Tonying," ROBERTO Mansueto was already preparing to leave and in her desire
after which the body was placed inside a
DESCARTIN y PASICARAN alias"Ruby" and JOELITO to catch up with him, Pansing promptly walked towards the
plastic bag and brought to an open sea
(JULITO), DESCARTIN y PASICARAN, accused-appellants. piggery which was around 100 meters away from her house.
by the pump boat owned by Roberto
She could see Mansueto leaning on the pigsty with Ruby on
Descartin y Pasicaran and operated by
his right side and Antonio Plasencia alias "Tonying" on his
VITUG, J.: Joelito Descartin y Pasicaran and
left; behind was Joelito.2 Midway, she was halted on her
dumped to the water by herein accused,
tracks; she suddenly saw Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter
and as a result of which said Herminio
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) staggered towards Ruby who himself then delivered another
Mansueto died, herein accused, in
Descartin were accused of robbery with homicide in an stab blow. Mansueto fell on his back. Joelito started hitting
pursuance of their conspiracy, wilfully,
information, dated 20 December 1984, that read: Mansueto on the forehead while Rene held Mansueto's
unlawfully and feloniously and with
legs.3 Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees
intent to gain, took and carried away the
around the area, nothing obstructed Pansing's line of vision.
That on or about the 29th day of personal property belonging to Herminio
Pansing rushed back home. The image of Antonio waving
November, 1984 at around 3:00 o'clock Mansueto, namely: one (1) Seiko 5
the weapon and the thought that she might herself be killed
in the afternoon, more or less, in sitio "Stop Watch" valued at P3,000.00; one
kept her from revealing to anyone what she saw.4
San Juan, Barangay Patao, Municipality (1) Bicycle (standard size) valued at
of Bantayan, Province of Cebu, P1,000.00; and cash in the amount of
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of P10,000.00, all in the total amount of The following day, in Kodia, Madridejos, Cebu, where
this Honorable Court, the said accused FOUR-TEEN THOUSAND PESOS Mansueto resided, his daughter Rosalinda reported to
conspiring and confederating together (P14,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the Francisca Tayo, the barangay captain, that her father had not
and mutually helping one another, did damage and prejudice of said oner (sic) returned home. Tayo proceeded to Putian, which was in
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and in the said total sum. Mansueto's itinerary, and then to Ruby's piggery in Patao,
feloniously, and with treachery, evident where a youngster, who turned out to be Ruby's son,
premeditation and taking advantage of innocently informed her that Mansueto's bicycle was taken
All contrary to law, and with the
their superior number and strength and by Joelito.5
qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and
with intent to kill, treacherously attack, the generic aggravating circumstance of
assault and use personal violence upon known premeditation. The day after, Francisca Tayo, accompanied by police
Herminio Mansueto, thereby inflicting officers of Madridejos, Cebu, and some relatives of
upon him the following physical injuries: Mansueto, went back to Ruby's place. On a railing of the
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
pigpen, she saw blood stains. When she asked Ruby's father
1. Stab wounds which was about it, he said that the stains had come from chicken
approximately two inches in When arraigned, all the accused entered a plea of "not blood. Going around the piggery, she also saw blood stains
length, parallel to the ribs and guilty" to the charge; whereupon, trial commenced. on a bamboo pole, which Ruby's father once again so
is located 1 1/2 inches below identified as chicken blood. At the back of the piggery,
the right nipple on the right Francisca noticed a digging which looked like an empty
The prosecution sought to establish, as follows:
anterior axillary line and on grave. The digging was measured and photos were taken.
the fifth intercostal space. On The police found a hat at the back of a hut beside the
probing the wound was At around ten o'clock in the morning of 29 November 1984, piggery, which was later recognized to be that which
penetrating immediately up to Herminio Mansueto, wearing a blue and white striped t-shirt, belonged to Mansueto.6
the left parasternal border maong pants, Seiko 5 stop watch and a pandan hat, left on
approximately hitting the his bicycle for Barangay Patao, Bantayan, Cebu. He had In the morning of 30 November 1984, Patrolman Elpidio
heart; with him P10,000.00 cash which he would use to purchase Desquitado of the Bantayan police went back to the piggery.
hogs from a certain "Ruby." This time, the police learned from Pansing herself that
2. Hacking wound 9 inches in Joelito took Mansueto's bicycle.7 Joelito was invited to the
length extending from the In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as police headquarters to shed light on the case. Later, Joelito,
coracoid process of the left Pansing and whose house was just across the street from waiving his right to counsel, executed a "confession."8
clavicle passing between the the respective residences of the three accused, saw at the
Joelito narrated that, upon Ruby's instruction, he brought the accused was reclusion perpetua with a joint and several civil A. Witness showing to the court her left palm and
bicycle to the piggery. Unexpectedly, he said, Tonying liability for indemnification to the heirs of Herminio Mansueto the following words have been written in her palm
Plasencia stabbed Mansueto. Stunned, Joelito tried to run in the amount of P30,000.00. in ball pen handwritten words and number of the
away but Tonying stopped him. Tonying then dragged the pumpboat No. 56 and there is another word
victim to a nearby house. Threatened by Tonying, Joelito "petsa" and there are words which cannot be
The instant appeal was interposed by the three convicted
agreed to later return to where the victim's body was deciphered and all found in the palm of the left
appellants.
dragged. At around eleven o'clock that evening, tonying and hand.
Joelito placed the body in a sack. Tonying asked Ruby to
allow the use of the latter's pumpboat to ferry the body. Appellant Antonio Plasencia attacks the credibility of the
ATTY. MONTECLAR:
Tonying paddled the pumpboat to the island of Po-Po'o prosecution's lone eyewitness, Francisca Espina, alleging
where he picked up some pieces of stones. Then, again that she is a pejured witness who has an axe to grind against
paddling the pumpboat farther away from the island, he him because his dog had once bitten Francisca's child. 16 He That is all.
ordered Joelito to start the engine of the boat. They headed bewails the fact that it has taken Francisca until 29
for the islet of Gilotongin (Hilotongan). On the way, Tonying December 1984 to reveal what she supposedly has seen to
ATTY. GONZALES: RE-CROSS
filled the sack with stones and, using a rope, tied to it the the police authorities. Contending that treachery has not
body of the victim. Tonying then unloaded their cargo into the been duly proven as "no wound was inflicted at the back and
sea. as a matter of fact only one wound was fatal," 17 appellant Q Mrs. witness, you cannot deny of what these
argues that even if conspiracy were to be considered to have physical evidences or writings on the palm of your
attended the commission of the crime, he could be held left hand. I want you to be honest, the law will not
Guided by Joelito, members of the Bantayan police force
liable with the others, if at all, only for homicide. allow you to lie, you are subject to punishment and
headed for the islet of Hilotongan on two pumpboats 9 in the
penalty. My question is, who wrote this on the
area pinpointed to be the place where the body was
palm of your left hand?
dumped. On the second day of the search, the group was Appellant Roberto Descartin, likewise challenging Francisca
informed that the body had already surfaced near the vicinity Espina's credibility because of her alleged inconsistencies,
of the search and delivered to the municipal building. 10 faults the trial court for allowing the witness to glance at the A I was the one who wrote this.
notes written on her palm while testifying. He also argues
that his alibi, being corroborated, should have been given
The municipal health officer of Bantayan, Dr. Oscar Quirante, Q Why did you write that down?
weight.
examined the body and concluded that the victim died of
internal hemorrhage due to stab wounds. 11 The bloated
body was in a late stage of decomposition and its skin had A I was the one who wrote this.
Appellant Joelito Descartin, in assailing the credibility of
sloughed off. 12 He found the victim's face to be "beyond Francisca, has noted her "jittery actuation" while giving her
recognition." There were "some rope signs in the body testimony. He also questions the findings of the ponente for Q Why, what was your purpose of writing that in
particularly in the waistline and in the knees." 13 not being the presiding judge during the examination of your palm?
Francisca on the witness stand.
The main defense interposed is one of alibi. A I wrote this in my palm because I wanted to be
The focus of this appeal is clearly one of credibility. The initial sure of what time the incident happened, was the
assessment on the testimony of a witness is done by the trial same as that I wrote in my palm.
Antonio stated that on the whole day of 29 November 1984,
court, and its findings still deserve due regard
he was out at sea fishing with his son. Joelito, on his part,
notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the
asserted that he was in Barrio Baod, about an hour's walk Q And who furnished you the data in which you
decision is not the one who personally may have heard the
from his residence, at the house of his fiancee. He returned wrote in the palm of your hand?
testimony. 18 The reliance on the transcript of stenographic
to his house, he said, only the day after. Roberto ("Ruby"),
notes should not, for that reason alone, render the judgment
Joelito's uncle, testified that on that fateful day, he was in
subject to challenge. 19 The continuity of the court and the A I was the one who made that.
Samoco Purok 2, Iligan City, and then left for Cebu on 06
efficacy of its decision are not affected by the cessation from
December 1984 only after receiving a telegraph that Joelito
the service of the judge presiding it 20or by the fact that its
was implicated in the crime. ATTY. GONZALES:
writer merely took over from a colleague who presided at the
trial. 21
The Regional Trial Court 14 did not give credence to the Q You don't understand my question. You wrote
defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused of murder that writing but where did you get that data?
It is asserted that the testimony of Francisca Espina should
(punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code),
not be given worth since, while testifying, she would at times
instead of robbery with homicide, explaining that the term
be seen reading some notes written on her left palm. Thus A. This is just of what I know.
"homicide" was used in the information in its generic
—
sense. 15 Finding conspiracy, the trial court ruled that the
killing was qualified by both treachery and abuse of superior Q Since you claim to have all this knowledge of
strength with the latter, however, being absorbed by the Q. May I see your left hand, may I see what is your mind, why did you find it necessary to write
former. No other aggravating or mitigating circumstances written there? that in the palm of your hand and I notice during
being attendant in the commission of the crime, the trial court the trial that you used to look in your palm, why, is
said, the penalty that could be imposed upon each of the
that necessary in your believe to testify here to evidence must be received with caution. falsehood 31 even as they also erase suspicion of rehearsed
what you knew about the incident. (Emphasis supplied.) testimony.32
A Because of the fact that I have an headache. Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on All considered, the case against the appellants has been
the sound discretion of the trial court. 23 In this proven beyond reasonable doubt even with the retracted
case, the exercise of that discretion has not been extra-judicial admission of Joelito Descartin. 33 The testimony
Q When did this headache occur?
abused; the witness herself has explained that she of a single witness, if found to be credible, is adequate for
merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like conviction, 34 The defense of alibi hardly can overcome the
A After I left my house because my sick child. details. positive identification of an unprejudiced eyewitness. 35
Q Now, knowing that you have an headache, did Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be Like the trial court, we are not persuaded that robbery has
you not bring this to the attention of the Fiscal? "jittery" on the witness stand. Nervousness and anxiety of a been proven to be the principal motive for the crime that can
witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those warrant the conviction of appellants for the complex crime of
who are called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in robbery with homicide. 36 Appellants could only thus be held
A No, I did not tell the Fiscal. fact, should be when they show no such emotions. responsible for the killing of Mansueto. Conspiracy among
the appellants has been established beyond doubt by the
Q Do you know of your own that doing this is sum of their deeds pointing to a joint purpose and design. 37
Francisca did fail in immediately reporting the killing to the
unfair and is not allowable while testifying in open police authorities. Delay or vacillation, however, in making a
court, do you know that is illegal act? criminal accusation does not necessarily adulterate the Three aggravating circumstances were alleged in the
credibility of the witness. 24 Francisca, in her case, has information, i.e., treachery, evident premeditation and abuse
A No, I did not, know. expressed fears for her life considering that the assailants, of superior strength. The trial court disregarded the
being her neighbors, could easily exact retribution on circumstance of evident premeditation and concluded that
her. 25 Also, the hesitancy in reporting the occurrence of a the attack upon Mansueto was committed with treachery and
Q And you did all of this claiming that you do not crime in rural areas is not unknown. 26 abuse of superior strength. On its finding that the assault
know about the incident for the purpose of giving was unexpectedly perpetrated upon the unarmed victim to
here testimony against the accused? ensure its execution without risk to themselves from the
Francisca's inability to respond to the summons for another
defense that the victim might make, the trial court
appearance in court for further questioning was satisfactorily
A Yes, sir. 22 appreciated treachery, which it deemed as having so
explained by the prosecution. Francisca at the time just had
absorbed abuse of superior strength.
a miscarriage and was found to be too weak to travel. The
The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness recall of the witness was, after all, at the sound discretion of
is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132, of the the trial court. 27 The trial court was correct when it concluded that the crime
Rules of Court states: committed was murder, a crime technically lower than
robbery with homicide, 38 not, however, because of the
The claim of appellant Roberto Descartin that Francisca and
attendance of treachery but of abuse of superior strength.
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to her husband, a tuba-gatherer, owed him P300.00, and the
Treachery, in our view, was not satisfactorily proven by the
memorandum. — A witness may be assertion made by appellant Antonio Plasencia on the dog-
prosecution. Francisca Espina simply testified that appellant
allowed to refresh his memory biting story involving Francisca's son truly were too petty to
Plasencia stabbed Mansueto while the latter and the
respecting a fact, by anything written or consider. It would be absurd to think that Francisca, for such
appellants were in a huddle. There was nothing adduced on
recorded by himself or under his trivial reasons was actually impelled to falsely implicate
whether or not the victim gave provocation, an indispensable
direction at the time when the fact appellants for so grave an offense as murder.
issue in the proper appreciation of treachery. 39 The
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or presence, nonetheless, of the aggravating circumstance of
at any other time when the fact was Appellants questioned Francisca's ability to recognize them abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to
fresh in his memory and he knew that from a distance. Francisca knew appellants well; they all murder. 40 The three appellants utilized superiority in
the same was correctly written or were her neighbors while Antonio Plasencia himself was her numbers and employed deadly weapons in assaulting the
recorded; but in such case the writing or cousin. 28 The crime occurred at around three o'clock in the unarmed Mansueto.
record must be produced and may be afternoon only about fifty (50) meters away from her. With an
inspected by the adverse party, who unobstructed view, Francisca's positive identification of the
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the There being no other aggravating or mitigating
culprits should be a foregone matter. 29
witness upon it and may read it in circumstances to consider, the trial court aptly imposed the
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify penalty of reclusion perpetua, the medium period 41 of the
from such a writing or record, though he The alleged inconsistencies in Francisca's testimony and in penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death prescribed
retain no recollection of the particular her sworn statement of 18 December 1984, cover matters of by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In conformity with
facts, if he is able to swear that the little significance. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prevailing jurisprudential law, the heirs of the victim should
writing or record correctly stated the witnesses do not detract from their credibility; 30 on the be indemnified in the amount of P50,000.00. 42
transaction when made; but such contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility and are
taken as badges of truth rather than as indicia of
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting The Sub-Contractor (SOCOR c. That the Contractor shall pay the
appellants Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito Corporation) and the Contractor (RDC Supplier the volume of the supplied
(Julito) Descartin of the crime of murder and imposing on Construction) for the consideration items on the actual weight in metric tons
each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby hereinafter named, hereby agree as
delivered and accepted by the MPWH
AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity to the follows:
heirs of the victim, Herminio Mansueto, is raised to fifteen (15) days after the submission of
P50,000.00. Costs against appellants. SO ORDERED. the bill;
1. SCOPE OF WORK:
d. The delivery will commence upon the
G.R. No. 96202 April 13, 1999 a. The Sub-Contractor agrees to acceptance of the offer.
perform and execute the Supply, Lay
ROSELLA D. CANQUE, petitioner, and Compact Item 310 and Item 302; On May 28, 1986, private respondent
vs.
sent petitioner a bill (Exh. C), containing
THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOCOR CONSTRUCTION b. That Contractor shall provide the
CORPORATION, respondents. a revised computation, 6 for
labor and materials needed to complete P299,717.75, plus interest at rate of 3%
the project; a month, representing the balance of
MENDOZA, J
petitioner's total account of
c. That the Contractor agrees to pay the P2,098,400.25 for materials delivered
This petition for review on certiorari seeks a reversal of the Sub-Contractor the price of One and services rendered by private
decision 1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment 2 of Thousand Pesos only (P1,000.00) per respondent under the two contracts.
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City ordering petitioner — Metric Ton of Item 310 and Eight However, petitioner refused to pay the
Thousand Only (P8,000.00) per Metric amount, claiming that private
. . . to pay [private respondent] the Ton of Item 302. respondent failed to submit the delivery
principal sum of Two Hundred Ninety
receipts showing the actual weight in
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred d. That the Contractor shall pay the Sub-
Seventeen Pesos and Seventy Five metric tons of the items delivered and
Contractor the volume of the supplied
Centavos (P299,717.75) plus interest the acceptance thereof by the
Item based on the actual weight in
thereon at 12% per annum from government. 7
September 22, 1986, the date of the Metric Tons delivered, laid and
filing of the complaint until fully paid; to compacted and accepted by the MPWH;
pay [private respondent] the further sum Hence, on September 22, 1986, private respondent brought
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for e. The construction will commence upon suit in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to recover from
reasonable attorney's fees; to pay the petitioner the sum of P299,717.75, plus interest at the rate of
the acceptance of the offer.
sum of Five Hundred Fifty Two Pesos 3% a month.
and Eighty Six Centavos (P552.86) for The second contract (Exh. B), 5 dated July 23,
filing fees and to pay the costs of suit. In her answer, petitioner admitted the existence of the
1985, stated:
Since [private respondent] withdrew its contracts with private respondent as well as receipt of the
prayer for an alias writ of preliminary billing (Exh. C), dated May 28, 1986. However, she disputed
attachment vis-a-vis the [petitioner's] The Supplier (SOCOR Construction) the correctness of the bill —
counterbound, the incident on and the Contractor (RDC Construction)
the alias writ of preliminary attachment for the consideration hereinafter named,
has become moot and academic. . . . considering that the deliveries of
hereby agree as follows:
[private respondent] were not signed
and acknowledged by the checkers of
The facts are as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: [petitioner], the bituminous tack coat it
delivered to [petitioner] consisted of 60%
Petitioner Rosella D. Canque is a contractor doing business a. The Supplier agrees to perform and water, and [petitioner] has already paid
under the name and style RDC Construction. At the time [private respondent] about
execute the delivery of Item 310 and
material to this case, she had contracts with the government P1,400,000.00 but [private respondent]
Item 302 to the jobsite for the Asphalting has not issued any receipt to [petitioner]
for (a) the restoration of Cebu-Toledo wharf road; (b) the of DAS Access Road and the Front Gate
asphalting of Lutopan access road; and (c) the asphalting of for said payments and there is no
of ACMDC, Toledo City; agreement that [private respondent] will
Babag road in Lapulapu City. 3 In connection with these
projects, petitioner entered into two contracts with private charge 3% per month interest. 8
respondent Socor Construction Corporation. The first b. That the Contractor should inform or
contract (Exh. A), 4 dated April 26, 1985, provided: give notice to the Supplier two (2) days Petitioner subsequently amended her answer denying she
before the delivery of such items; had entered into sub-contracts with private respondent. 9
During the trial, private respondent, as plaintiff, presented its II. THE DECISION OF THE 4. The entries were made in his
vice-president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its RESPONDENT COURT SHOULD BE professional capacity or in the
bookkeeper. REVERSED AS IT HAS ONLY performance of a duty, whether legal,
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO contractual, moral or religious; and
10 SUPPORT IT.
Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony.
5. The entries were made in the ordinary
First. Petitioner contends that the presentation of the delivery or regular course of business or duty. 16
On June 22, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision
receipts duly accepted by the then Ministry of Public Works
ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of
and Highways (MPWH) is required under the contracts
P299,717.75 plus interest at 12% per annum, and costs. It As petitioner points out, the business entries in question
(Exhs. A and B) and is a condition precedent for her payment
held: (Exh. K) do not meet the first and third requisites. Dolores
of the amount claimed by private respondent. Petitioner
Aday, who made the entries, was presented by private
argues that the entries in private respondent's Book of
respondent to testify on the account of RDC Construction. It
. . . . [B]y analyzing the plaintiff's Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. K) cannot take the place of the
was in the course of her testimony that the entries were
Collectible Accounts particularly page 17 delivery receipts and that such entries are mere hearsay
presented and marked in evidence. There was, therefore,
thereof (Exh. "K") this Court is and, thus, inadmissible in evidence. 14
neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the
convinced that the entries (both
entries as the person who made them was available to testify
payments and billings) recorded thereat
We agree with the appellate court that the stipulation in the in court.
are credible. Undeniably, the book
two contracts requiring the submission of delivery receipts
contains a detailed account of SOCOR's
does not preclude proof of delivery of materials by private
commercial transactions with RDC Necessity is given as a ground for
respondent in some other way. The question is whether the
which were entered therein in the course admitting entries, in that they are the
entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. K)
of business. We cannot therefore best available evidence. Said a learned
constitute competent evidence to show such delivery. Private
disregard the entries recorded under judge: "What a man has actually done
respondent cites Rule 130, §37 of the Rules of Court and
Exhibit "K" because the fact of their and committed to writing when under
argues that the entries in question constitute "entries in the
having been made in the course of obligation to do the act, it being in the
course of business" sufficient to prove deliveries made for
business carries with it some degree of course of the business he has
the government projects. This provision reads:
trustworthiness. Besides, no proof was undertaken, and he being dead, there
ever offered to demonstrate the seems to be no danger in submitting to
irregularity of the said entries thus, there Entries in the course of business. — the consideration of the court." The
is then no cogent reason for us to doubt Entries made at, or near the time of the person who maybe called to court to
their authenticity. 11 transactions to which they refer, by a testify on these entries being dead,
person deceased, outside of the there arises the necessity of their
Philippines or unable to testify, who was admission without the one who made
The trial court further ruled that in spite of the fact that the
in a position to know the facts therein them being called to court be sworn and
contracts did not have any stipulation on interest, interest
stated, may be received as prima subjected to cross-examination. And this
may be awarded in the form of damages under Article 2209
facie evidence, if such person made the is permissible in order to prevent a
of the Civil Code. 12
entries in his professional capacity or in failure of justice. 17
the performance of duty and in the
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld the trial ordinary or regular course of business or
Moreover, Aday admitted that she had no personal
court's' reliance on private respondent's Book of Collectible duty. 15
knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She said she
Accounts (Exh. K) on the basis of Rule 130, §37 13 of the
made the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has
Rules of Court.
The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the
requires the satisfaction of the following conditions: bills. The deliveries of the materials stated in the bills were
Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends that — supervised by "an engineer for (such) functions." 18 The
person, therefore, who has personal knowledge of the facts
1. The person who made the entry must
stated in the entries, i.e., that such deliveries were made in
I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED be dead, outside the country or unable
the amounts and on the dates stated, was the company's
IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE AS to testify;
project engineer. The entries made by Aday show only that
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF the billings had been submitted to her by the engineer and
BUSINESS THE ENTRIES IN PRIVATE
2. The entries were made at or near the that she faithfully recorded the amounts stared therein in the
RESPONDENT'S BOOK OF
time of the transactions to which they books of account. Whether or not the bills given to Aday
COLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
refer; correctly reflected the deliveries made in the amounts and on
CONSIDERING THAT THE PERSON the dates indicated was a fact that could be established by
WHO MADE SAID ENTRIES the project engineer alone who, however, was not presented
ACTUALLY TESTIFIED IN THIS CASE 3. The entrant was in a position to know during trial. The rule is stated by former Chief Justice Moran,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY HAD NO the facts stated in the entries; thus:
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SAID
ENTRIES.
[W]hen the witness had no personal Where the evidence is inadmissible for testimony has been refreshed by a
knowledge of the facts entered by him, the purpose stated in the offer, it must memorandum of the events in dispute,
and the person who gave him the be rejected, though the same may be such memorandum is not admissible as
information is individually known and admissible for another purpose. The rule corroborative evidence. It is self-evident
may testify as to the facts stated in the is stated thus: "If a party . . . opens the that a witness may not be corroborated
entry which is not part of a system of particular view with which he offers any by any written statement prepared
entries where scores of employees have part of his evidence, or states the object wholly by him. He cannot be more
intervened, such entry is not admissible to be attained by it, he precludes himself credible just because he supports his
without the testimony of the informer. 19 from insisting on its operation in any open-court declaration with written
other direction, or for any other object; statements of the same facts even if he
and the reason is, that the opposite did prepare them during the occasion in
Second. It is nonetheless argued by private respondent that
party is prevented from objecting to its dispute, unless the proper predicate of
although the entries cannot be considered an exception to
competency in any view different from his failing memory is priorly laid down.
the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132,
the one proposed. 21 What is more, even where this
§10 20 of the Rules of Court which provides:
requirement has been satisfied, the
express injunction of the rule itself is that
It should be noted, however, that Exh. K is not really being
Sec. 10. When witness may refer to such evidence must be received with
presented for another purpose. Private respondent's counsel
memorandum. — A witness may be caution, if only because it is not very
offered it for the purpose of showing the amount of
allowed to refresh his memory difficult to conceive and fabricate
petitioner's indebtedness. He said:
respecting a fact, by anything written by evidence of this nature. This is doubly
himself or under his direction at the time true when the witness stands to gain
when the fact occurred, or immediately Exhibit "K," your Honor — faithful materially or otherwise from the
thereafter, or at any other time when the reproduction of page (17) of the book on admission of such evidence . . . . 24
fact was fresh in his memory and he Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff,
knew that the same was correctly stated reflecting the principal indebtedness of
As the entries in question (Exh. K) were not made based on
in the writing; but in such case the defendant in the amount of Two hundred
personal knowledge, they could only corroborate Dolores
writing must be produced and may be ninety-nine thousand seven hundred
Aday's testimony that she made the entries as she received
inspected by the adverse party, who seventeen pesos and seventy-five
the bills.
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the centavos (P299,717.75) and reflecting
witness upon it, and may read it in as well the accumulated interest of three
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify percent (3%) monthly compounded such Third. Does this, therefore, mean there is no competent
from such a writing, though he retain no that as of December 11, 1987, the evidence of private respondent's claim as petitioner
recollection of the particular facts, if he amount collectible from the defendant by argues? 25 The answer is in the negative. Aside from Exh. K,
is able to swear that the writing correctly the plaintiff is Six hundred sixteen private respondent presented the following documents:
stated the transaction when made; but thousand four hundred thirty-five pesos
such evidence must be received with and seventy-two centavos
1) Exhibits A — Contract Agreement
caution. (P616,435.72); 22
dated 26 April 1985 which contract
covers both the Toledo wharf project and
On the other hand, petitioner contends that evidence which This is also the purpose for which its admission is the Babag Road project in Lapulapu
is inadmissible for the purpose for which it was offered sought as a memorandum to refresh the memory City.
cannot be admitted for another purpose. She cites the of Dolores Aday as a witness. In other words, it is
following from Chief Justice Moran's commentaries: the nature of the evidence that is changed, not the
2) Exhibit B — Contract Agreement
purpose for which it is offered.
dated 23 July 1985 which covers the
The purpose for which the evidence is DAS Asphalting Project.
offered must be specified. Where the Be that as it may, considered as a memorandum, Exh. K
offer is general, and the evidence is does not itself constitute evidence. As explained
3) Exhibit C — Revised Computation of
admissible for one purpose and in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals:23
Billings submitted on May 28, 1986.
inadmissible for another, the evidence
should be rejected. Likewise, where the
Under the above provision (Rule 132,
offer is made for two or more purposes 4) Exhibit D — an affidavit executed by
§10), the memorandum used to refresh
and the evidence is incompetent for one [petitioner] to the effect that she has no
the memory of the witness does not
of them, the evidence should be more pending or unsettled obligations as
constitute evidence, and may not be
excluded. The reason for the rule is that far as Toledo Wharf Road is concerned.
admitted as such, for the simple reason
"it is the duty of a party to select the
that the witness has just the same to
competent from the incompetent in
testify on the basis of refreshed memory. 5) Exhibit D-1 — Statement of Work
offering testimony, and he cannot
In other words, where the witness has Accomplished on the Road Restoration
impose this duty upon the trial court."
testified independently of or after his of Cebu-Toledo wharf project.
6) Exhibit E — another affidavit performance. In view of these facts, we
executed by [petitioner] attesting that believe Art. 1235 of the New Civil Code
she has completely paid her laborers at is applicable.
the project located at Babag, Lapulapu
City
Art. 1235. When the obligee
accepts the performance,
7) Exhibits F, G, G-1, G-2, G-3 — knowing its incompleteness
Premiums paid by [private respondent] and irregularity and without
together with the receipts for filing fees. expressing any protest or
objection, the obligation is
deemed complied with.
8) Exhibits H, I, J — certifications issued
by OIC, MPWH, Regional Office;
Lapulapu City, City Engineer; Toledo FINALLY, after a conscientious scrutiny
City Treasurer's Office respectively, of the records, we find Exhibit "D-1" (p.
proving that RDC construction has no 85 record) to be a material proof of
more collectibles with all the said plaintiff's complete fulfillment of its
government offices in connection with its obligation.
projects.
There is no question that plaintiff
10) Exhibit L — Bill No. 057 under the supplied RDC Construction with Item
account of RDC Construction in the 302 (Bitunimous Prime Coat), Item 303
amount of P153,382.75 dated August (Bituminous Tack Coat) and Item 310
24, 1985. (Bitunimous Concrete Surface Course)
in all the three projects of the latter. The
Lutopan Access Road project, the
11) Exhibit M — Bill No. 069 (RDC's
Toledo wharf project and the Babag-
account), in the amount of
Lapulapu Road project.
P1,701,795.00 dated November 20,
1985.
On the other hand, no proof was ever
offered by defendant to show the
12) Exhibit N — Bill No. 071 (RDC's
presence of other contractors in those
account) in the amount of P47,250.00
projects. We can therefore conclude that
dated November 22, 1985.
it was Socor Construction
Corp. ALONE who supplied RDC with
13) Exhibit O — Bill No. 079 (RDC's Bituminous Prime Coat, Bituminous Tack
account) in the amount of P7,290.00 Coat and Bituminous Concrete Surface
dated December 6, 1985. Course for all the aforenamed three
projects. 26
As the trial court found:
Indeed, while petitioner had previously paid private
respondent about P1,400,000.00 for deliveries made in the
The entries recorded under Exhibit "K" past, she did not show that she made such payments only
were supported by Exhibits "L", "M", "N", after the delivery receipts had been presented by private
"O" which are all Socor Billings under respondent. On the other hand, it appears that petitioner was
the account of RDC Construction. These able to collect the full amount of project costs from the
billings were presented and duly government, so that petitioner would be unjustly enriched at
received by the authorized the expense of private respondent if she is not made to pay
representatives of defendant. The what is her just obligation the contracts.
circumstances obtaining in the case at
bar clearly show that for a long period of
time after receipt thereof, RDC never WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
manifested its dissatisfaction or AFFIRMED.
objection to the aforestated billings
submitted by plaintiff. Neither did
SO ORDERED.
defendant immediately protest to
plaintiff's alleged incomplete or irregular