Ong v.

Yap
Facts:
 Respondent Cristina Yap and Sps. Gardola were charged of Estafa
 Petitioner, Ong, worked as a salesman in a drug company. Yap was one of his his customers.
Ong opened his own pharmacy and bough products from Yap—because of this, a
relationship of trust has been established between the two
 Yap mentioned to the Ongs that she was investing some amount of money with Paramount
Lending Investors owned by Sps. Gardola, which gave her a very high margin of profit. Yap
also made her poultry business as an example telling the Ongs that such business was built
on the profits made from Paramount
 The Ongs sold their house, the proceeds of which were invested to Paramount. When
Gordola picked up the money, she issued 2 PDCs (for principal and for interest) in favor of
the Ongs. The Ongs also obtained a loan from Metrobank, the proceeds of which were also
invested to Paramount. A housing loan from Union Bank was also taken out, the proceeds
of which, were also invested to Paramount. All of these amounted to P7,000,000
 Initially, the Ongs were able to realize profits from their investments. However, some checks
issued started to bounce
o The Ongs requested Gordola to replace the bounced checks.
o Ongs informed Yap about the bounced checks. Yap assured them that they will be
paid and dissuaded them from filing a case against the Gordolas
o After 12 checks bounced, the Ongs filed against Gordola
 Ong testified that when they filed the first case against the Gordolas, they were made to
believe that Yap had nothing to do with their loss of investment. But after talking to some
people, they were convinced that Yap was the reason for their loss. They reprimanded
Yap—she denied, so Ongs went to court
o On cross-examination, Ong testified that it was Yap who introduced them to the
Gordolas. The Ongs, with Yap, went to the house of the Gordolas. They met a few
occasions before they invested with Paramount—but no friendship was established
o Ong admitted that he testified in a previous civil case filed against the
Gordolas, that he met the Gordolas on several occasions, that the Ongs were
shown the Gordolas’ big houses and business so that the Ongs decided to let
the Gordolas borrow money
 Ong admitted that Yap did not issue them any check. No evidence was presented
showing that Yap was a stockholder, an officer, or in any way connected with
Paramount.
 RTC acquitted Yap—prosecution failed to prove that Yap conspired with Gordolas;
involvement was merely to accompany the Gordolas to the Ongs; no pretense on the part of
either (Yap and Gordolas) for the execution of the unlawful objective
 CA affirmed. Hence this appeal.

FRIENDS 1
Issue: Whether the CA erred in affirming the acquittal of Yap—No; Whether the CA erred in
applying proof beyond reasonable doubt as the quantum of proof in determining Yap’s civil liability,
instead of mere preponderance—No

Held:
- Rule 133, Sec. 10:
o In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies, the court may consider:
 All the facts and circumstances of the case
 The witnesses’ manner of testifying
 Their intelligence
 Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying
 The nature of the facts to which they testify
 The probability or improbability of their testimony
 Their interest or want of interest
 Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial
 On occasion, may also consider the number of witnesses
- Preponderance of evidence—the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater
weight of evidence” or “greater weight of credible evidence”
o It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto
o In CIVIL CASES, the burden of proof is in the PLAINTIFF to establish his
case by preponderance of evidence
- In the case at bar…
o Ong’s claim that it was Yap who induced them to lend money to the Gordolas is
belied by Ong’s own admission that he lent money to the Gordolas believing that
“they are okay, they were going well in business, etc…”—convinced that Gordolas
had the capacity to pay
o Ong also testified that they initially earned profits from the investments made
o Hence, the Ongs, based on their personal judgment, were convinced that the
GOrdolas had the capacity to pay and that they would profit from the interest
involved
o The prosecution failed to prove that Yap conspired with the Gordolas in
committing the offense charged against them
 The prosecution admitted the not one of the checks was made, issued
or drawn by Yap
 Petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence showing that
Yap has a civil obligation toward them

FRIENDS 2
People v. Padica (state witness); Leopoldo and Leon Marajas (appellant)
Facts:
- Appellant and his brother Leopoldo, using a car, visited Padica. Leopoldo requested Padica
to drive for Eddie Boy, a brother of Leopoldo and appellant, and his classmates, giving
P100.00 to Padica for the purpose
- The proceeded to Superville Subdivision. Eddie Boy Marajas and Francis Banaga, both 14
years old, were in said subdivision. Leopoldo, with Francis and Eddie Boy, boarded the car.
All of them went to Laguna, with Padica still driving the vehicle
- When they reached Laguna, Francis refused to get down from the car. He was forced out of
the car by Leopoldo, Eddie Boy and appellant, who pulled him out of the vehicle
- The three brought Francis Banaga to a place inside the sugarcane plantation. Leopoldo then
delivered several stabbing blows to Francis, after which, appellant shot Francis with a
handgun
- The father of Francis, Tomas, became alarmed that his son did not come home. A few
minutes later, someone called Tomas and told him not to look for his son as he was in good
condition, and demanding P500,000 for his release
o Tomas received a second phone call; the amount was reduced to P200,000 then
another phone call reducing it P23,000 and giving instructions that the money be
wrapped in a newspaper, placed in a paper bag and delivered by a girl wearing a T-
shirt to Luneta
- Norma, sister-in-law of Tomas, volunteered to deliver the money. During the exchange,
appellant alighted from the vehicle, approached Norma and got the money from her which
was in a paper bag. Appellant told Norma to wait for Francis in their house. Thereafter,
officers apprehended and arrested appellant
- Appellant led the ream to the place where the cadaver was dumped, which was inside a
sugarcane plantation. The team recovered the body of Francis and brought it to the
municipal health officer for autopsy
o In the necropsy report, it was stated that Francis sustained 2 gunshot wounds which
caused his death
- After 3 years in hiding out of fear for his life, Padica finally revealed to a certain Lt. Cruz
that he witnessed the killing of Francis
- Appellant, in his defense, proffered the theory that there was an elaborate frame up against
him and his brother
- The RTC held that the appellant was guilty for the crime of kidnapping for ransom with
murder
- Appellant argues the following before the SC:
o Court erred in ruling that he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
o Court erred in giving full credence of the state witness
o Court erred in laying emphasis on the weakness of the defense interposed by
appellant

FRIENDS 3
 o Court erred in disregarding the inconsistencies raised by the defense as minor and
insubstantial

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant guilty—No; though the categorization of the
offense must be modified

Held:
- The prosecution has duly discharged its onus probandi insofar as the culpability of the
appellant is concerned, but the Court did not accept as correct the nature or categorization
of the offense
- Kidnapping was not the case here. The crime committed was murder, attended by qualifying
circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of strength
o The appellant and his companions had only murder as their intent when they invited
Francis to go with them to Laguna, and not to confine or detain him for any length
of time or for any other purpose
o From the beginning, appellant and his brothers intended to kill the victim can be
deduced from the manner by which they swiftly snuffed out Francis’ life once they
reached the isolated sugarcane plantation in Laguna
o There was no evidence to show that from the outset, the killers intended to exchange
the victim’s freedom for ransom money
 The demand for ransom was an afterthought, as it was relayed to victim’s
father very much later that afternoon after a sufficient interval for
consultation and deliberation among the felons who had killed the victim
o Francis, who was already 14 years old, was neither forced nor coerced unlawfully into
going along with his killers. He voluntarily boarded the car and went with the
Marajas brother to Laguna
 The victim had reason to trust them as they were neighbors and of of the
killers was his schoolmate and playmate
o There was treachery—Francis was lured by his killers into going with them to
Laguna without the slightest inkling of nefarious design
 This was coupled with the sudden and unexpected assault in the isolated
plantation—divestment of an opportunity to resist or escape
- Appellant’s defense of alibi must fail. Inherently weak and considered negative in nature.
When put against positive declaration of witnesses for the prosecution, the same would all
the more be given little consideration
o This was coupled by the fact that appellant was not even sure as to his whereabouts.
Simply offered the evidence that he was more or less in Batangas which was
uncorroborated
- With regard to the argument that appellant was entrapped on the night after receiving the
ransom money from Norma, the Court rejected this—the police report clearly bears out the
fact that appellant was arrested by the investigating police officers on that night pursuant to

FRIENDS 4
 the dragnet plan that was prepared for the purpose, the veracity of which record further
enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which
appellant failed to rebut
- With regard to Padica as state witness, it is true that the testimony of a PARTICEPS
CRIMINIS is to be invariably with much caution, coming as it does from a polluted
source
o HOWEVER in the case at bar and after a careful evaluation, the Court found
no plausible reason to depart from the favorable appreciation by the trial court
of Padica’s testimony which the said court characterized as reasonable and
probable, given in a clear, straightforward and convincing manner thereby
leaving no doubt in the mind of said court.
o The stamp of approval given by the trial court on the testimony of a particular
witness as a consequence of its factual findings is normally accorded finality
by appellate courts, the court below having had the opportunity to observe
closely the manner by which such witness testified
 In the present case, no evidence was presented to show any ill motive on the
part of Padica to impute such a serious crime on the appellant and his
brothers, thus entitling it to considerably credit
 He cannot be discredited just because of his silence on the road and
for not knowing Leopoldo’s profession and the surname of a common
compadre. It is of common knowledge that there are persons who are
taciturn and not as inquisitive as others, or who disdain prying into the
affairs even of their close friends
o Discharge of an accused to be a state witness lies within the sound discretion
of the court before whom it is sought and in the exercise of that discretion, is
not required that the court be absolutely certain that all the requirement for
the proper discharge of a co-accused be present
 IN THE CASE AT BAR, the prosecution presented enough evidence
to support its motion for the discharge of Padica. The trial court’s
reliance thereon and its consequent finding on the basis thereof that
Padica did not appear to be the most guilty must be respected as it
was in better position to evaluate such evidence

Tapales v. CA
Facts
 This case is about a criminal case of serious physical injuries filed by the complainant Dr.
Melquiades Virata against petitioner Jesus Tapales.
 Virata went to Philippine National Bank to make some arrangements in its Loan and
Discout Department regarding his obligations with the bank. Since the manager was not
around, he left the room and met the accused Jesus Tapales. They talked and Tapales then

FRIENDS 5
 demanded upon Virata the payment of the former’s commission amounting to P14,000 for
the release of the latter’s loan from the GSIS.
 Virata refused and Tapales then proceeded to box, kick and strangle him. The complainant
was brought to the North General Hospital where he was treated for nasal injury, the
physician depressing a bone on the right lateral side of his nose.
 During the trial, Tapales invoked the claim of self-defense, saying that the complainant was
the first person who committed violence. According to Tapales, the Virata approached him
and accused him of calling his wife repeatedly. He denied the allegation and said that all the
calls were simply in his official capacity as the private secretary of Virata’s company.
 Hearing this, Virata hit the petitioner “left and right” and struck him with the former’s
portfolio.
 The City Court rejected the plea of self-defense and the CA affirmed the decision, modifying
it to include the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Issue: WON Tapales was guilty of Serious Physical Injuries?—Yes

Held
It was mentioned in the ruling that Tapales’ theory of self-defense was negated by the Court of
Appeals due to the fact that it is highly improbable that Virata, a 70-year old man would be able to
box and beat up a 38-year old man.

Certainly, a man of complainant’s age would prove no match to petitioner who was not only much
younger, but also stronger. This being so, it would be difficult to believe that complainant had been
the aggressor, hitting petitioner “left and right” and striking him with a portfolio.

On the issue of proof, the evidence presented by the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt
that petitioner attacked and assaulted complainant without sufficient provocation, inflicting upon
the latter physical injuries. The decision was based on the consistency of the testimony of the doctor
with how the injuries were sustained by the complainant. According to the doctor, the depression on
the complainant’s face as well as his broken nose were consistent with the usual injuries when one
was to be boxed in the face and it is highly improbable that the injuries were sustained by mere
falling on the floor, as said by the accused.

FRIENDS 6
People v. Camarce
Facts:
 Danilo Espineli, Reynaldo Villeta, and Richard Camarce were charged with the crime of
forcible abduction with rape.
 Danilo Espineli and Reynaldo Villeta remained at large during the trial of the case. Richard
Camarce voluntarily surrendered, was tried and was convicted.
 Version of the Prosecution:

o While Marita Ancanan was on her way home from the Infant Jesus Academy, a tricycle
stopped beside her. Driving the tricycle at that time was Reynaldo Villeta and seated
inside the cab of the tricycle was appellant Richard Camarce.

o Appellant offered to take Marita home on the tricycle. When she refused, the tricycle
followed her while walkig. Appellant then told her to get in the tricycle. When she
refused the offer again, appellant got off the tricycle, held Marita's right hand with his
right hand, wound his left arm around her back and covered her mouth with his left
hand. He dragged her into the cab of the tricycle and as soon as she was inside the
tricycle, immediately instructed Villeta to drive away. Marita struggled

o The tricycle in which Marita had been abducted stopped at a waiting shed. Waiting at
that shed was one Wilfredo Piol who whistled as the tricycle approached. At the sound
of the whistle, Danilo Espineli appeared. Appellant stepped out of the cab of the
tricycle and Espineli replaced him thereat. Appellant then rode behind Villeta on the
motorcycle (of the tricycle). Espineli also held Marita at her waist with one of his hands
over her mouth. Espineli told Marita that he, who had been courting her, had lost all
hope in winning her love and had no choice but to abduct her.

o The tricycle stopped and Marita was dragged by appellant Espineli, and Villeta into a
hut. She was forced to write a note that she went voluntarily with Espineli, and
thereafter she was conned in a room.

o Two of her classmates, Marina Destura and Fidela Amadure, who were walking behind
her at a distance of about twelve (12) meters away, saw Marita as she was forcibly
dragged by appellant into the tricycle which was driven by Reynaldo Villeta. Marina
and Fidela reported the incident to the mother of Marita, Gregoria Ancanan. Gregoria
Ancanan reported the abduction of her daughter to the Police Headquarters.

FRIENDS 7
 o Danilo Espineli brought Marita Ancanan some food at the elevated room of the hut
where she had been conned from the beginning. She refused to eat the food offered
to her. Espineli suddenly embraced her and kissed her on her face, neck and different
parts of the body.

o At about midnight, the mother of Danilo Espineli came to the hut where Marita was
kept. Afterwards, Marita was taken to the house of Danilo Espineli where she was
again made to write a note at the dictation of Danilo. In that note, she stated that she
went on her own free will with Danilo Espineli.

o Marita was taken to the house of Danilo Espineli's grandmother. She told Marita that
she (the grandmother) would die if Marita did not marry Danilo. Marita also overheard
conversation that she could not be returned to her parents if she did not consent to
marry Danilo. Faced with no other alternative, Marita agreed to marry Danilo. A
'pamanhikan' was thereafter arranged by the barrio captain, with the parents of Marita.

o Marita was taken to her house by Danilo Espineli, his parents and relatives and the
barrio captain of Silang, Cavite, who had arranged the 'pamanhikan' earlier. Marita
retired into a room and never came out of it while Danilo Espineli and his party were
around. All she could say to her parents then, in the midst of tears, was that she did
not voluntarily go with Danilo and that she would not marry him. In view of this
development, Marita's father told Danilo Espineli and his party to go home

o Marita's mother and relatives brought her to Dr. Caparaz for a physical examination.
After the physical examination, Dr. Caparaz told her relatives that she had been
abused.

Issue:
 Whether the evidence is sufficiently establishes Camarce’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
 No, significant to this case was the testimony of Concepcion Reyes, teacher of the four alleged
eyewitnesses to the incident.
o Reyes testified that Wilfredo Piol, one of her students, informed her that her student,
Marita Ancanan eloped. Upon further inquiry, Piol told Miss Reyes that he witnessed
the elopement. Reyes asked Marina Destura, who was a friend of Marita Ancanan,
whether she knew about Marita's elopement. Marina Destura volunteered to look for
Marita as she did not know anything about Marita Ancanan's elopement. After
sometime, Marina Destura returned and informed Miss Reyes that Marita Ancanan "is
not in her house. Miss Reyes together with some students proceeded to Marita
Ancanan's house. Only Marita Ancanan's sister was at home. While in the house of

FRIENDS 8
 Marita Ancana. Fidela Amadure, one of her students and a classmate of Marita arrived.
Fidela Amadure, after informing Miss Reyes that Marita Ancanan was missing asked
the teacher about the questions given by her in a test. This is significant because
Amadure and Destura were supposed to be right behind Ancanan when she was
abducted. These two prosecution witnesses testified that the incident happened in the
heart of the town, in front of the church and that there were about eight other
classmates or co-students with them at the time.

 Mrs. Gregoria Ancanan reported to the police authorities the forcible abduction of her
daughter Marita on the basis of information given to her by the alleged eyewitnesses- Marina
Destura and Fidela Amadu. It must be noted that these two classmates positively identied
Richard Camarce, as the one who dragged Marita Ancanan to the waiting tricycle driven by
accused Reynaldo Villeta. And yet, it is not explained why the name of Richard Camarce as
one of the abductors was not included in the police blotter.

 Complainant Ancanan never mentioned nor insinuated the fact of rape to the persons she saw
from the time she was brought to Danilo Espineli's house by the latter's mother up to the time
she was brought to her parents' home by Espineli's parents and a barangay captain. The fact
that Marita Ancanan did not immediately tell her parents of the rape during the period she
was supposed to have been forcibly abducted and kept secret the crime from her own parents
at a time when there was no threat to her life or those of her parents raises doubts on the
credibility of her testimony regarding the alleged rape

 The prosecution did not offer the medical certificate or the results of the examination
conducted by Dr. Caparaz only a day after the incident. This circumstance on the non-
presentation could mean that the medical examination of Dr. Caparaz would be adverse to the
prosecution

 Moreover, Marita Ancanan gave conflicting testimony as to when the rape happened. At some
point, she said that she was raped by Danilo Espineli with the help of the other two accused
at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. At another instance, she declared that she was raped
for the first time at nighttime inside the nipa hut where she was brought after the first carnal
intercourse. This creates doubts as to her rape story.

 There is the six months delay in filing the verified complaint and another six months delay
before filing with the lower court. Assuming efforts to locate the missing co-accused, delay is
significant considering the circumstances outlined earlier. There is the improbability that
Espineli would take thirty minutes consummating the sex act on a girl he has been courting
for two or three years despite the fact that thirty minutes had been consumed by the girl's
efforts to prevent the sexual intercourse. There is the matter of the rape being committed in

FRIENDS 9
 the manner described by the complainant in a narrow portion of the small nipa hut where
three persons holding her down would find no place to position themselves.

Lukban v. Republic
Facts
 This case is about a petition filed by Lukban in the CFI of Rizal for the declaration that she
is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal
impediment to contract a subsequent marriage.
 The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by
law and the court sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition.
 Lourdes Lukban, the petitioner, contracted marriage with Francisco Chuidian in Manila on
December 10, 1933. The same year, literally 17 days after the marriage, Chuidian left Lukban
due to an argument and the former has been absent for more than 20 years.
 Since Lukban intends to marry again, she desires her civil status be defined in order that she
may be relieved of any liability under the law.
Issue: WON the petition will prosper?—No

Held:
A petition for judicial declaration that petitioner’s husband is presumed to be dead cannot be
entertained because it is not authorized by law. Such declaration cannot be made in a special
proceeding similar to the present as the matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of
the husband.

A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executory, would still be a prima facie
presumption only. It is still disputable. It is, therefore, clear that a judicial declaration that a person is
presumptively dead, because he had been unheard of in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum
only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final. The court cannot
declare the presumptive death of the husband because there is no such proceeding authorized by
law. If it can be satisfactorily proven that the husband is dead, the court would not certainly deny a
declaration to that effect as has been intimated in the case of Nicolas Szartraw.

FRIENDS 10