A. Conduct and Character as evidence People vs Edualino (G.R. No.

119072 April 11, 1997) Facts: This is a review of the convicted judgement of rape filed against Jesus Edualino by the complainant Rowena Nantiza a married and pregnant woman at the time of the incident. The complainant version of fact states that she was invited to drink a bottle of beer by then a drunk Edualino. When she was semi-conscious she was dragged in a secluded place where the evil acts were consummated. The accused arguments rely on alternative defenses and alibi, to wit; 1) that there was foreplay and orgasm that occurred in the alleged consummation and that according to the defense bear the earmarks of a voluntary and mutual coition of a consensual intercourse 2) that the character of the complainant is of ill-refute on the basis that no responsible and decent pregnant married woman, would be out at two (2) o'clock in the morning getting drunk much less would a decent Filipina ask a man to accompany her to drink beer 3) that the complainant merely concocted the charge of rape to save her marriage since her husband had found out that she was using drugs and drinking alcohol and even made a spectacle of herself when she tried to seduce accusedappellant on May 1994 while she was under the influence of drug and alcohol. Issue: Whether or not the crime of rape was established. Ruling: The crime of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the victim Rowena Nantiza's testimony was sufficient to manifest that the carnal knowledge was without her consent and with due force and intimidation. The court further provides that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim provided the testimony is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things On the issue of morality of the complainant, the court pointed out that the moral character of a rape victim is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The allegation of drunkenness and being a drug user will not per se preclude a finding that a woman was raped. The Court ruled that even prostitutes can be the victims of rape. On the Accused-appellant argument that the charge of rape was concocted by the victim to save her marriage; the Court did not believe that a married woman would invent a story that she was raped in an attempt to conceal addiction to drugs or alcohol, in order to save her marriage. The court cannot understand how a false rape story can save a marriage under the circumstances.

Case #8-A PEOPLE vs. NARDO FACTS: Alfredo Nardo was convicted by RTC of raping his daughter, Lorielyn. The conviction was based on the testimony of Lorielyn. During the trial, the defense tried to establish that Lorielyn is a liar. ISSUE: Is the RTC s conviction proper? HELD: Yes. The sole testimony of Lorielyn is sufficient to establish the guilt of her father so long that the court finds the testimony to be credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of the things. While lying may constitute a habit, we believe that the falsehoods committed by Lorielyn are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as charging one s own father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of its serious repercussions.

People vs Baid Facts: This is a rape case. The accused, who was a nurse-aide of the Holy Spirit Clinic, allegedly raped a mental patient inside the same clinic and was found guilty by the lower court. The complainant is schizophrenic. The complainant s attending psychiatrist and consultant was presented as an expert witness. Issue: Admissibility of Dr. Salangad s expert testimony Ruling: it is contended that as complainant is a schizophrenic, her testimony should not have been given credence by the trial court. We disagree. Notwithstanding her mental illness, complainant showed that she was qualified to be a witness, i.e., she could perceive and was capable of making known her perceptions to others Her testimony indicates that she could understand questions particularly relating to the incident and could give responsive answers to them. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The

opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City is AFFIRMED with the modification that, in addition to the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages made by the trial court, complainant should be indemnified in the amount of P50,000.00.

Jimenez vs EMRUPC Facts: This is a dispute involving real property. The petitioners contend that the disputed property belonged to their mother. It is currently held by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines having been donated by the Commission on Ecumenical Misison. The petitioners claim that they never sold the disputed lot. 5 witnesses and various documentary evidence were presented at the trial where the petitioners accused respondents of forging their signatures on the deed of sale. Respondents denied forgery and claimed prescription or laches since the petitioners slept on their rights for 45 years. The NBI and the PC Crime Laboratory both found that the signatures on the deed of sale were written by different persons. The trial court dismissed the case since the action was barred by prescription and laches. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court where it was remanded to the lower court for the issues to be discussed. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of petitioners declaring the nullity of the deed of sale and the transfer certificate of title in favor of the church and declaring the petitioners as rightful owners. The court of appeals reversed the RTC. The appellate court doubted the findings of the NBI and the PC handwriting experts, because "the documents from which the sample signatures were taken were either mere photocopies, or dated years away from the questioned Deed of Sale of 1936." Issue: Validity of NBI and PC Crime Labs findings as to the authenticity of the signatures based on photocopies of the document in question

Ruling: NO FINDING OF FORGERY After a review of the records and the pleadings of the parties, we hold that the CA did not err in overturning the RTC. It is also hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting experts, even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. In an earlier case, this Court explained as follows: Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." After comparing the questioned signatures, the CA concluded that they were not forged. We affirm its finding. Indeed, the best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of forgery can be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with the authentic or genuine one. The findings of the handwriting experts from the NBI and PC are of doubtful correctness because the documents from which the sample signatures were taken were either mere photocopies, or dated years away form the questioned deed of sale of 1936. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

Bautista vs CA Facts: Disputed parcel of land. Now deceased Cesar Morelos is the uncle of the petitioner. He conveyed the now disputed parcel of land to the petitioner, Laura Morelos Bautista evidenced by a deed of absolute sale and notarized by Luis M. de Guzman. A transfer certificate of title was also issued in favor of petitioner. Respondent claims to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos and instituted a complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and title with damages. He presented expert witness testimonies who claimed that the signature of Cesar Morelos and fingerprint on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint on his Residence Certificate were not his. The witness to the assailed deed of sale testified that she saw Cesar Morelos and Laura Bautista sign it.

The trial court found the deed of sale valid. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed the decision and declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. Issue: Strength of expert witness testimony to nullify a duly executed and notarized deed of absolute sale. Ruling: Respondent presented the testimony of Francisco Cruz, Jr., Chief Examiner of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service who claimed that the signature on the deed of sale was written by a different person. Major Braulio Monge, Chief of the Fingerprint Division of the PC-INP, testified that the thumbmark of Cesar Morelos appearing on the residence certificate indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale was not his. A notarized contract enjoys prima facie presumption of authenticity. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract. Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. Witness Francisco Cruz, Jr. failed to establish the fact that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not that of Cesar Morelos. He merely concluded that the document was a forgery without citing any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Cruz did not point out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing, which would ordinarily escape detection by an ordinary lay person. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45549 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch VII in Civil Case No. 83-17900, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista and Cesar Morelos over the subject parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2760 as valid is REINSTATED.

People vs Soliman

FACTS GERONIMO SOLIMAN Y BUENAVENTURA alias EMONG and SOFRONIO PALIN Y PAZ alias POLONIO were sentenced each to suffer the extreme penalty of death for the murder of

Ernesto Basa on April 29, 1955. Appellant Soliman testified that prior to the present incident, or on April 21, 1955, the deceased tried to borrow his pushcart and, as he was not able to lend it to him, the deceased boxed him and as a consequence, he suffered physical injuries; that incident was settled amicably on the same day by the companions of the deceased; that on another occasion the beat up Soliman with an iron pipe and the latter had to undergo medical treatment; that in the night of April 29, 1955, after he had eaten, he proceeded to a truck by the United Bus Line of which he was a watchman; that while he was passing, the deceased called him and asked for a drink; that he told the deceased he had no money, but the deceased forced him to give him money and even boxed him; that because the deceased had three companions, he pulled out his knife and upon seeing this, the three companions ran away; that he and the deceased fought in the course of which he stabbed him. The conviction was mainly predicated on the testimony of one eyewitness, Ernesto Balaktaw, supported by some circumstantial evidence. ISSUES 1. The defense claimed that the trial court erred in not granting its motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence which consists of the criminal record of prosecution witness Ernesto Balaktaw. 2. The trial court also erred in not allowing the defense to prove that the deceased had a violent, quarrelsome or provocative character. RULING 1. This claim is untenable. In the first place, the criminal record of Balaktaw cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence because the same was available to the defense much prior to the trial of this Case. It appears that said record can be obtained from the Criminal Identification Section of the Manila Police Department. In the second place, the fact that a person has been previously convicted of a crime does not necessarily disqualify him as a witness for he may still prove to be a truthful one. 2. This rule does not apply to cases of murder. While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery, premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary." (Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed, Vol. 3, 126.)

People vs Lee FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with murder. The prosecution presented as a witness the mother of the victim who narrated to the court the incident that that led to the killing of his son. For his defense, the Accused-appellant presented that he had known the victim since childhood and their houses are only two blocks apart. Moreover, the victim, Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict. The appellant alleges that the victim s drug habit led him to commit other crimes and he may have been shot by any of the persons from whom he had stolen. As proof of Joseph s bad character, appellant presented Herminia s letter to Mayor Malonzo seeking his assistance for Joseph s rehabilitation from drugs. On rebuttal, Herminia admitted that she wrote such letter to Mayor Malonzo but denied anything about her son s thievery. ISSUE Is the character evidence admissible? If so, what weight should be given to it.

HELD Rule 130 Sec 51 of the Revised Rules on Evidence allows proof of the good or bad moral character of the offended party is it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. It is commonly used as defense in an assault or homicide case to establish the likelihood that the victim commenced the aggression, or a claim of consent in a rape case to rebut evidence that the sexual act was made possible through the force, threat or intimidation. In this case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self defense. There is no connection between the deceased s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of the accused. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim s bad character he could have been killed by anyone from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.

People vs Adoviso FACTS: Pablo Adoviso appeals from the joint judgment of the RTC of Camarines Sur declaring him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of murder. The accused a member of CAFGU allegedly murdered Emetrio Vasquez and grandson Rufino Agunos. The witnesses presented were Bonifacio Vasquez, the son of Emetrio Vasquez and Elmer Vasquez, the son of Bonifacio. The two eyewitnesses positively identified Pablo Adoviso because of the gas lamp that was lighted inside the camalig and only the accused was not wearing a mask among the five perpetrators. The accused hinges his bid for exoneration on whether he was properly identified by the two (2) eyewitnesses as one of the killers of the victims. He contends that eyewitnesses Bonifacio and Elmer Vasquez presented an incredible story because it is highly improbable that they could have distinctly and positively recognized accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes." According to the accused, Bonifacio, who was in the dark portion of the yard hiding behind a coconut

tree, could not have identified appellant by the light emanating from gas lamp inside the camalig where Emeterio Vasquez and Rufino Agunos were staying at the time of the incident. Neither could Elmer Vasquez, who declared that he saw his grandfather shot by appellant, could have identified appellant because of the poor lighting coming from the gas lamp being carried by his grandfather. ISSUE: Are the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses in identifying the accused as perpetrator credible and not merely conjectures and speculations? HELD: Yes. Bonifacio and Elmer Vasquez positively identified the accused. The bamboo slats of the camalig could not have effectively obstructed the eyewitnesses' view of appellant, considering that the slats were built four (4) meters apart. Besides, it is the natural reaction of relatives of victims to strive to observe the faces and appearance of the assailants, if not ascertain their identities, and the manner in which the crime is committed. A relative will naturally be interested in identifying the malefactor to secure his conviction to obtain justice for the death of his relative(s). It must remembered that appellant was not a complete stranger to the eyewitnesses. Bonifacio had known him for ten (10) years while Elmer had been acquainted with him for four (4) years. Elmer recalled that appellant used to join the rabuz at the barracks Familiarity with appellants face and appearance minimized if not erased the possibility that they could have been mistaken as to his identity.

US vs Pineda

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO PINEDA, defendant-appellant. Francisco and Lualhati for appellant. Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee. Fact: Feliciano Santos bought medicines for his some sick horses from the drug store of Santiago Pineda, who is a registered pharmacist. Upon buying, he presented a copy of a prescription obtained from Dr. Richardson, and which on other occasions Santos had given to his horses with good results, at Pineda's drug store for filling. However, his two horses died after taking the medicine which prompted him to bring the remaining packages of medicine he purchase to the Bureau of Science for examination and it was found out by Drs. Pea and Darjuan the that the said packages contained not potassium chlorate but barium chlorate, a poison that caused the horses death. At the instance of Santos, the two chemists also went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate, which when analyzed was found to be barium chlorate. Issue: Whether or not the testimony of chemist Pena and Darjuan as to their purchase of potassium chlorate at the drug store of the accused, which substance proved on analysis to be barium chlorate is admissible? Ruling: What the appellant is here relying on is the maxim res inter alios acta. As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is inadmissible. But appellant has confused this maxim and this rule with certain exceptions thereto. The effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. Nor is there an attempt to draw the mind away from the point at issue and thus to prejudice

defendant's case. The purpose is to ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence. If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be established. It has been said that there is no better evidence of negligence than the frequency of accidents. (See 10 R. C. L., pp. 938, 940.) The United States Supreme Court has held that: On the trial of a criminal case the question relates to the tendency of certain testimony to throw light upon a particular fact, or to explain the conduct of a particular person, there is a certain discretion on the part of the trial judge which a court of errors will not interfere with, unless it manifestly appear that the testimony has no legitimate bearing upon the question at issue, and is calculated to prejudice the accused. Whenever the necessity arises for a resort to circumstantial evidence, either from the nature of the inquiry or the failure of direct proof, objections to the testimony on the ground of irrelevancy are not favored. Evidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to show motive, although it tends to prove the commission of another offense by the defendant. (Moore vs. U. S. [1893], 150 U. S., 57.)

PP VS ABRIOL FACTS Accused Ariol. Astellero, and Dosdos are convicted for murder of Flores. One of the prosecutions witnesses was a ballistics expert from the PNP Crime Laboratory who testified that the test bullets and cartridges matched the slugs and cartridges recovered from the scene of the crime. Apellants claim the ballistician lacked adequate training and expertise and that his opinion was not reliable. ISSUE Is the experts witness admissible? Who is an expert witness? RULING Yes. An expert witness is "one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion." There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present: (1) training and education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3) presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. The ballistician qualifies as an expert. He is a licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation and has already previously testified to several homicide cases.

The question of whether a witness is properly qualified to give an expert opinion on the subject matter rests with the discretion of the trial court. People vs Dy facts: in a prosecution for rape, to prove that the victim was drugged by accused, the state presented a physician as an expert witness. the witness opined that the sedative-hypnotic drug known as antivan or lorazepan could probably be the one used. issue: considering that the witness was not accredited as an expert by the dangerous drugs board, is he competent to testify as an expert? held: yes. the fact that the witness has not been accredited as an expert by the dangerous drugs board does not necessarily mean that he is not an expert on the effect of drugs. accreditation by the board is not an essential element of expertise. more properly, expertise pertains to the knowledge and experience as well as relevant exposure to a particular field of discipline. it appears that the witness met these requisites.
People vs Santos facts: in a prosecution for murder and frustrated murder, one of the documentary exhibits offered was an affidavit of a witness in another criminal case against the same accused. the other case was also for murder that occured in the same spot where the murder case currently on trial happened. over the objection of accused, considering that the person who executed the affidavit did not testify, the exhibit was admitted by the trial court. issue: did the court commit an error in admitting affidavit? held: no. the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting the affidavit for the limited purpose of proving knowledge or plan or scheme, and more specifically that accused knew that the particular corner of two streets in malabon was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers. sec. 34. rule 130 of the rules of court states that evidence that one did or did not do a certain things at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be recieved to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like. PP vs Inang Case #2-A (1937) Conduct and Character as Evidence Facts of the case: This is case of a complex crime of robbery with homicide committed by Benjamin Irang and others, namely: Fidel Estrella, Ignacio Sebastian, Jocento Sebastian and Juan Lavaste @ Juan de Caste between 7 and 8 o'clock of the night of Nov. 9, 1935 at the residence of husband and wife Perfecto Melocotones and Maximiana Vicente at barrio Maturanoc, Guemba, Nueva Ecija.

On that night the defendants/appellants with white strupes on their faces armed with gun and bolos went to the house of the above victims to robbed them.In doing so, they killed Perfecto Melocotones by attacking him with a bolo while Maximiana Vicente lost consciousness momentarily when she was struck on the face by the butt of a gun by one of the assailants. Regaining consciousness she saw his husband already dead and was asked by one of the assailants to bring out their money and jewelries. She then turned over their money worth Php 70.00 and jewelries worth at Php 200.00 from the trunkwhere she was keeping them. During the short space of time that she was turning over the money and jewelries, she was able to identify the man's face having pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. On that same night the house of Juana de la Cruz was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots before arriving at and going up the house. All of them had white stripes on their faces. Juana de la Cruz notice that one of them had pockmarks and scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maongcolored suit. It was he who opened her trunk. With this, the constabulary officers were able to round up three groups of suspects. The first two group when presented to the victims, yeilded negative results. While the last group yeilded a person, Benjamin Irang, with pockmarks and scars on the left eyelid and later identified by the two victims as one of the assailants/suspect that committed the above crimes. Benjamin Irang on his appeal alleged the following errors: 1. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant Benjamin Irang had been sufficiently identified beyond reasonable doubt,and in not giving due weight to the testimony of the witnesses for the defense. 2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the defendant Benjamin Irang on the ground of reasonable doubt. Issue whether or not the accused/appelant Benjamin Irang was identified as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones, killed him and robbed his wife Maximiana Vicente of money and jewelry. Ruling/held: While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution of robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as a perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. Wherefore, with the sole modification that the accused/appellant Benjamin Irang is sentenced further to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of Php 1,000 and to restore Maximiana Vicente the sum of Php 70.00 and the stolen jewelry and gun, or to reimburse the value thereof in the amount of Php 390.00, the judgement appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with costs of this instance to the appelant.

Case #4-A People vs. Babiera FACTS: This is an appeal taken by Clemente Babiera, Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding them guilty of the crime of murder of Severino Haro. On their appeal they raised that it was Severino Haro who started the attack and they only acted in defense of their lives and property, having been obliged to resort to arms on seeing their lives endangered. They also attempted to prove that Severino Haro was of a quarrelsome disposition, provoking, irascible, and fond of starting quarrels in the municipality of Oton. ISSUE: Whether or not the offended party's quarrelsome disposition can be proved in the trial to determine who began the attack. HELD: In order to decide the question thus raised, it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances, previous, coetaneous and subsequently to the incident in question, and to determine who had, or could have had, motives to assault the other. While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts (Underhill Criminal Evidence, par. 325, p.570), such as the accused Clemente Babiera tried to prove, and hence the lower court did not err in not admitting such proof. But even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the deceased was of such a disposition, nevertheless, it would not have been sufficient to overthrow the conclusive proof that it was the said accused who treacherously attacked the deceased.