You are on page 1of 33

Prof. V. A.

Avena A2010
Evidence

Late Digests (Round 1) In the instant case, the wife did not testify in the direct stock equivalent to the amount paid thereon at P450 a
evidence for the prosecution. It will be noted that the share.
wife only testified against her husband after the latter, - On Jan 1942, the Japanese occupied Manila and seized
PEOPLE V FRANCISCO
testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her the all assets of the company. Fitzsimmons died on 1944
78 SCRA 696
killing of their little son. By all rules of justice and and special proceeding was instituted. Atlantic
HILADO; July 16, 1947
reason this gave the prosecution, which had resumed business in 1945.
(yella)
theretofore refrained from presenting the wife as a - Atlantic filed a claim on the estate worth P63,868.67
witness against her husband, the right to do so, as it Fitzsimmons owed them. It also wanted to exercise its
FACTS: did in rebuttal; and to the wife herself the right to so option to acquire the 545 shares by returning the
- Defendant, who had been previously arrested on testify, at least, in self-defense, not, of course, against P64.5k Fitzsimmons paid. They requested a set-off.
charges of robbery requested permission from the being subjected to punishment in that case in which Lichauco, the administrator, denied any indebtedness.
chief of police of Mansalay to go home to see his wife she was not a defendant but against any or all of He expressed conformity however to the refund of
about the procurement of bail for his provisional various possible consequences which might flow from P64.5k. He also interposed a counterclaim worth P90k
release. Permission was granted. He was allowed to her silence. for salaries allegedly due.
go with sergeant Pimentel. Furthermore, by his said act (imputing the crime to his - Santiago Inacay, chief of the accounting department
- Upon reaching the house, the sergeant allowed the wife), the husband himself exercising the very right of the Atlantic testified that the officers had maintained
prisoner to see his wife. After a few moments, which he would deny to his wife upon the ground of personal accounts with the company. Fitzsimmons
Pimentel heard the scream of a woman. Still their marital relations must be taken to have waived all maintained one. He testified that at the end of 1941,
moments later, Pimentel saw defendant lying down objection to the latter’s testimony upon rebuttal, even the account shows that Fitzsimmons owed 63k to the
with his little son Romeo, aged one year and a half, considering that such objection would have been company. He said that he specifically knew the balance
on his breast. Pimentel also found defendant to have available at the outset. As well settled as this rule of of the said account because it would be very
a wound in his belly while his child had a wound in marital incompetency itself is the other that it may be “shameful” on his part if the officers asked him for their
the back. Pimentel found the child dead. waived. balance and he didn’t know.
- The prosecution, in recommending the imposition of - Modesto Flores, the assistant accountant, also
the capital penalty upon the accused relies mainly on testified that Fitzsimmons had a balance of 63k. He
the affidavit of the accused, the arraignment of the knew this because as accountant, he made the entries
defendant upon which he made a plea of guilty, and LICHAUCO V ATLANTIC in the books of the company. He also signed receipts
the rebuttal testimony of Emilia Taladtad, wife of GR NO.L-27434 whenever Fitzsimmons would withdraw funds.
appellant. OZAETA; August 23, 1949 - Mr. Henry J. Belden and Mr. Samuel Garmezy, vice-
(monch) president-treasurer and president were also called to
ISSUE: (relevant to the topic in the outline) testify but the TC refused to admit them because they
WON the testimony of Emilia Taladtad, wife of FACTS were not only large stockholders and members of the
appellant, is admissible - Appelant Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila board of directors but also vice-president-treasurer and
is a foreign corporation duly registered and licensed to president, respectively, of the claimant company.
HELD: do business in the Philippines, with its office and However, if allowed to testify, they said that they would
- YES. principal place of business in the City of Manila. Richard also say that they had personal knowledge that
The rule contained in section 26(d) of Rule 123 is an old T. Fitzsimmons was the president and one of the Fitzsimmons owed the company 63k.
one. Courts have assigned as reasons therefor the largest stockholders of said company when the Pacific - The administrator as evidence showed Exhibit 1,
following: first, identity of interest; second, the war broke out on December 8, 1941. He held 1,00 which contains the gross value of assets of the conjugal
consequent danger of perjury; third, the policy of the shares of stock, 545 of which was not fully paid. He partnership of Fitzsimmons and Miguela Malayto. He
law which deems it necessary to guard the security and executed promissory notes in favor of the company testified that he was the attorney in the divorce case
confidences of private life even at the risk of and worth P245,250 (540 per share) for those shares. In (1943) between them and that Fitzsimmons prepared
occasional failure of justice, and which rejects such 1941 he already paid P64.5k. Exhibit 1 for the division of assets of the partnership. In
evidence because its admission would lead to domestic - Fitzsimmons had an agreement with the company said exhibit, there is no indication of any debt to the
disunion and unhappiness; and, fourth, because where that should he die without having paid in full, the company
a want of domestic tranquility exists, there is danger of company, at its option, may either reacquire the said
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of 545 shares of stock by returning to his estate the ISSUE/S
the other. However, this rule has its exceptions as well. amount applied thereon, or issue in favor of his estate 1. WON the officers of a corporation which is a party to
the corresponding number of the company's shares of an action against an executor or administrator of a

29
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

deceased person are disqualified from testifying as to the best of position to testify on the status of the authorizing the payment of the salaries of the president
any matter of fact occurring before the death of such personal account" of the deceased Fitzsimmons or any other officer or employee of the corporation for
deceased person under Rule 123, section 26(c), of the the period of the war when the corporation was forced
Rules of Court (now Rule 130.23) 2. NO completely to suspend its business operations and
2. WON Exhibit 1 is admissible because it is self-serving Reasoning A self-serving declaration is a statement when its officers were interned or virtually held
2. WON the deceased Richard T. Fitzsimmons was favorable to the interest of the declarant. It is not prisoners by the enemy
entitled to his salary as president of the Atlantic, Gulf & admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted.
Pacific Company of Manila from January, 1942, to June On the other hand, a declaration against the interest of
27, 1944, when he died in the Santo Tomas internment the person making it is admissible in evidence, BABAO VS PEREZ
camp notwithstanding its hearsay character, if the declaration G.R. No. L-8334
is relevant and the declarant has died, become insane, Bautista; December 28, 1957
HELD or for some other reason is not available as a witness. (mel)
1. NO - Insofar, at least, as the appellant was concerned,
Ratio Rule 123 disqualifies only parties or assignors of there was no probable motive on the part of NATURE
parties. The officers and/or stockholders of a Fitzsimmons to falsify his inventory Exhibit 1 by not This is an action to recover one-half of a parcel of land
corporation are not disqualified from testifying, for or including therein appellant's present claim of P63,000 containing an area of 156 hectares situated in San Juan,
against the corporation which is a party to an action among his obligations or liabilities to be deducted from Batangas, plus the value of the produce gathered
upon a claim or demand against the estate of a the assets of the conjugal partnership between him and thereon from August, 1947 until actual recovery and in
deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring his divorced wife. He did not know then that he would the alternative, to recover the Sum of P47,000
before the death of such deceased person die within one year and that the corporation of which representing reimbursement of the amount of useful
Reasoning he was the president and one of the largest and necessary expenses incurred to the clear and
- This provision was taken from section 383, paragraph stockholders would present the claim in question improve the aforesaid land.
7, of our former Code of Civil Procedure, which in turn against his estate. Neither did he know that the books
was derived from section 1880 of the Code of Civil and records of that corporation would be destroyed or FACTS
Procedure of California. lost. Yet, although he listed in said inventory his Plaintiff is the judicial administrator of the estate of the
- City Savings Bank vs. Enos: To hold that the statute obligations in favor of the Peoples Bank and Trust late Santiago Babao while defendant Florencio Perez is
disqualifies all persons from testifying who are officers Company and the Philippine Bank of Commerce the judicial administrator of the estate of the late
or stockholders of a corporation would be equivalent to aggregating more than P30,000, he did not mention at Celestina Perez. The other defendants are purchasers
materially amending the statute by judicial all any obligation in favor of the corporation of which he and actual owners of portions of the land which is
interpretation. Plainly the law disqualifies only "parties was the president and one of the largest stockholders. sought to be recovered in the present litigation.
or assignors of parties," and does not apply to persons - A possible explanation such conflict between the Celestina Perez was the owner of the parcel of land.
who are merely employed by such parties or assignors company and Fitzsimmons can be seen in Inacay’s Sometime in 1924 when the deceased Santiago Babao
of parties testimony. The latter said that at the end of the year, married Maria Cleofe Perez, niece of Celestina Perez,
- Merriman vs. Wickersman: An examination of the the personal accounts would be on the credit side since the latter and the former entered into a verbal
authorities from other states will disclose that their the dividend, bonuses and fees would be credited. On agreement whereby Santiago Babao bound himself to
decisions rest upon the wordings of their statutes, but the year 1941, such did not happen because of the war. improve the land by leveling and clearing all the forest
that generally, where interest in the litigation or its Fitzsimmons could have believed that such amount was trees standing thereon and planting in lieu there of
outcome has ceased to disqualify, officers and directors credited, therefore, he did not include any obligations coconuts, rice, corn and other crops such as bananas
of corporations are not considered to be parties within he had to the company in Exhibit 1. However, since the and bamboo trees, and to act at the same time as
the meaning of the law. counsels did not pursue this point, the court cannot rule administrator thereof during the lifetime of Celestina
- The trial court erred in not admitting the testimony of on this point. Leaving this foregoing reflection, the Perez, all expenses for labor, and materials to be at his
Messrs. Belden and Garmezy. It is not necessary, court held that since the testimonies are based only on cost, in consideration of which Celestina in turn bound
however, to remand the case because it would be memory, and given that human memory, especially herself to convey to Santiago Babao or, his wife of land,
merely corroborative, if at all, and in any event what with regard to figures after more than 5 years, is together with all the improvements thereon upon her
said witnesses would have testified, if permitted, unreliable, they cannot overturn the TC decision. death;
already appears in the record as hereinabove set forth, -Due to said verbal agreement, Santiago Babao left his
and we can consider it together with the testimony of 3. No job as administrator of the Llana Estate in San Juan,
the chief accountant and the assistant accountant who, ReasoningThere was no resolution either of the Batangas for which he was receiving a salary of P150 a
according to the appellant itself, were "the only ones in stockholders of the board of directors of the company month, and started leveling and clearing the land, all of

30
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

which having been administered by him from 1924 to year to year; that the coconut trees, banana plants and the complaint "that Santiago fully complied with his
1946; that for clearing and improving the portions of bamboo trees now standing thereon were planted not part of the oral contract between the parties and that
land above-mentioned, he incurred expenses by Santiago Babao nor at his expenses but by the this is an action not only specific performance but also
amounting to P7,400 which added to his salary as tenants of the spouses Esteban de Villa and Celestina for damages." Consequently, the court held that the
administrator from l924 to 1946 at rate P150 a month Perez who were dully compensated according to the Statute of frauds cannot be invoked for the reason that
mounting to P39,600, makes a total of P47,000; "trusco" system; Although Santiago Babao and Maria "performance by one party of his part of the contract
-In the violation of the aforesaid verbal agreement, Cleofe Perez were married in 1924, the former did not takes the case out of the statute." And pursuant to such
Celestina Perez, acting through Leovigildo Perez, to have anything to do with the land in question to ruling, when the case was tried on the merits, the court
whom she extended a power of Attorney to sell, sold Esteban de Villa was then still living and actively overruled to the introduction of oral testimony to prove
few days before she died about 127 hectares of the managed the same with help of his overseer and the alleged verbal agreement.
land in question in consequence of which Santiago tenants until he died in 1930. It was only in that year
Babao was deprived of the possession and when Santiago Babao began administering the land in
administration thereof from 1945. the capacity of a nephew of Celestina until 1935 when
Celestina Perez died on August 24, 1947 as a result of Celestina disgusted with the conduct of Santiago, left
which intestate proceedings were instituted for the the company of Santiago and his wife and went to live ISSUE
settlement of her estate and one Florencio Perez was with her nephew Bernardo Perez until her death in WON the testimony of plaintiff Bernardo Babao and that
named as judicial administrator; Santiago Babao died 1947. Since then Celestina Perez prohibited Santiago of his mother Cleofe Perez as to what occurred between
on January 6, 1948 and as a consequence in estate from interfering with the administration of the land and Celestina Perez and Santiago Babao, with regard to the
proceedings were instituted for the settlement of his designated another person in his place, and for the agreement should not be admitted
estate and Bienvenido Babao failed to recover the work he did from 1930 to 1935, he was more than
portion of the lane herein litigated, said estate would compensated because the proceeds of the harvests HELD
suffer an irreparable damage of not less than P366,700 during said years were all given only to him and his YES
representing fruits which it has failed to receive during wife and Celestina was given only what was barely RATIO
the last 20 years. Wherefore, plaintiff prayed for the sufficient for her maintenance. During the trial of this case, counsel for appellants
conveyance of portion of the land in question and for Defendants also alleged that the sales made by objected the admission of the testimony of plaintiff
annulment of the sales of the portion for having been Celestina Perez through her attorney-in-fact Leovigildo Bernardo Babao and that of his mother Cleofe Perez as
made fictitiously, and in the alternative, for judgment in Perez of several portions of the land were not fictitious to what occurred between Celestina Perez and Santiago
plaintiff's favor for the sum of P47,000 representing the but were made with full knowledge and authority of Babao, with regard to the agreement on the ground
amount of useful and necessary expenses incurred by Celestina who executed in favor of Leovigildo Perez a that their testimony was prohibited by section 26(c) of
Santiago Babao in improving the land in line with the power of Attorney under the authority notary public in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court. This rule prohibits
oral agreement. the presence of Santiago Babao himself who did not parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
Defendant’s claim: interpose any objection to the execution of said power whose behalf case is prosecuted, against an executor
Defendants denied plaintiff's claim that a verbal of attorney and, therefore, said sales are real, valid and or administrator of a deceased person upon a claim or
agreement was entered into between Celestina Perez genuine, having been executed in accordance with law. demand against the estate of such deceased person
Babao relative to the clearing, improving and Defendants prayed that the complaint be dismissed from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before
administering the land belonging to the former having After hearing, the court rendered in favor of the plaintiff the death of such deceased person. But the court
an area of 156 hectares, as well as the other claim that and against the defendants. Defendants in due time overruled the opposition saying that said rule did not
Santiago Babao had actually cleared and improve a took the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals where apply where the complaint against the estate of a
great portion thereof at the cost at around P7,400. the parties submitted their respective briefs within the deceased person alleges fraud, citing the case of Ong
They alleged in 1924 and for many years prior thereto, reglementary period, and thereafter the court rendered Chua vs. Carr. Here again the court is in error because
the land in question had already been cleared and judgment reversing in toto the decision appealed from if in that case the witness was allowed to testify it was
cultivated for agricultural purposes with an exception of and dismissing the case without pronouncement as to because the existence of fraud was first established by
a portion of 50 hectares; Said land was cleared and costs. sufficient and competent evidence. Here, however, the
cultivated due partly to the effort made by Celestinas While this case was pending in the lower court, counsel alleged fraud is predicated upon the existence of the
husband, Esteban de Villa, her overseers and tenants, for appellants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, agreement itself which violates the rule of petitio
and partly to the "trusco" system employed by them amount others, but the alleged verbal agreement principii. Evidently, the fraud to exist must be
whereby persons were allowed to clear the land and between Santiago Babao and Celestina Perez was established by evidence aliunde and not by the same
plat thereon and from the harvest were compensated enforceable under the Statute of frauds. The trial court evidence which is to sought to be prevented. The
according to a graduated scale of division varying from denied this motion on the ground that it appears from infringement of the rule is evident.

31
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

. . . The reason for this rule is that "if death has closed Leyte Asphalt. It also contained a breakdown of the - The CFI absolved Leyte Asphalt from four of the six
the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to close the prices per ton. causes of action. The CFI allowed Barton to recover
lips of the other.' Another reason is that `the - If “the sales in the above territory equal or exceed ten $202,500 from the first cause of action and $405,000
temptation to falsehood and concealment in such cases 10,000 tons in the year ending October 1, 1921 then in from the fourth cause of action.
is considered too great to allow the surviving party to that event the price of all shipments made during the
testify in his own behalf.' Accordingly, the above period shall be ten pesos (P10) per ton, and any - Among the evidence presented was a carbon copy of
incompetency applies whether the deceased died sum charged to any of your customers or buyers in the a letter written by Baron to Atty. Ingersoll, his lawyer.
before or after the commencement of the action aforesaid territory in excess of ten pesos (P10) per ton” In the said letter, Baron wrote that his profit from the
against him, if at the time the testimony was given he shall be rebated to Baron. San Francisco contract would have been at the rate of
was dead and cannot disprove it, since the reason for - Baron also had full authority to sell the Lucio mine 85 cents per ton.
the prohibition, which is to discourage perjury, exists in products for any sum he saw fit in excess of the prices - When the letter was offered in evidence by the
both instances. quoted above and such excess in price was to be his attorney for the defendant, the counsel for the plaintiff
extra and additional profit and commission. announced that he had no objection to the introduction
- All ships, steamers, boats or other carriers were to be of this carbon copy in evidence if counsel for the
Disqualification by Reason of Privileged loaded promptly with not less than 1,000 tons each 24 defendant would explain where this copy was secured.
Communication hours after March 1, 1921, unless there was to be prior - The attorney for the defendant informed the court
notice. It was also stipulated that Leyte Asphalt shall that he received the letter from the former attorneys of
BARTON V LEYTE ASPHALT not be required to ship orders of 5,000 tons except on the defendant without explanation of the manner in
G.R. L-21237 30 days notice and 10,000 tons except on 60 days which the document had come into their possession.
STREET; March 22, 1924 notice. - Baron’s lawyer then made an announcement that
(aida) - Baron entered into subagency agreements in San unless the defendant’s counsel explained how the letter
Francisco and Australia. came to the defense’s possession, he proposed to
FACTS - In San Francisco, he entered into an agreement with object the letter’s admission on the ground that it was
- James Barton is a US citizen residing in Manila while Ludvigsen & McCurdy. Ludvigsen & McCurdy was a confidential communication between client and
Leyte Asphalt is a Philippine company which has its instituted as a subagent and given the sole selling lawyer.
principal office in Cebu. rights for the bituminous limestone products of Leyte - The trial judge excluded the letter.
- Barton sought to recover the sum of $318,563.30 in Asphalt for 1 year.
damages from Leyte Asphalt due to breach of contract - Baron had also gone to Australia where he instituted ISSUE
along with a judicial pronouncement that he was Frank Smith as his sales agent. WON the letter should be excluded
entitled to an extension of the terms of the sales - February 5, 1921 – Ludvigsen & McCurdy advised
agencies specified in the contract (Exhibit A). Baron of an order of 6,000 tons of bituminous limestone HELD
- Leyte Asphalt appears to be the owner of the Lucio which Baron accepted. NO
Mine in Leyte, a valuable deposit of bituminous - Anderson informed Baron that Leyte Asphalt was Ratio When papers are offered in evidence a court will
limestone and other asphalt products. behind construction so it could not handle big contracts take no notice of how they were obtained, whether
- William Anderson, the general manager of Leyte as of the moment. The two met in Manila on March 12 legally or illegally, properly or improperly; nor will it
Asphalt, wrote a letter to Baron authorizing the latter to and Baron told Anderson about the San Francisco order. form a collateral issue to try that question.
sell the products of the Lucio Mine in the Anderson said that, owing to lack of capital, adequate Reasoning
Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand upon a facilities had not been provided by the company for - Even supposing that the letter was within the privilege
scale of prices indicated in said letter. filling large orders and suggested that Baron had better which protects communications between attorney and
- Exhibit A, the authorization Baron relies on, contained hold up in the matter of taking orders. client, this privilege was lost when the letter came to
the following stipulations (among others): - Despite Anderson’s response, Baron wrote a the hands of the adverse party and it makes no
- Baron is given the sole and exclusive sales agency for notification to Leyte Asphalt for the company to be difference how the defense acquired possession.
the bituminous limestone and other asphalt products of prepared to ship five thousand tons of bituminous - The law protects the client from the effect of
the Leyte Asphalt in Australia, Saigon, Java, New limestone to San Francisco. He also made additional disclosures made by him to his attorney in the
Zealand, India, China, Tasmania, Sumatra, Siam, the orders for Smith in Australia. confidence of the legal relation, but when such a
Strait Settlements, USA and Hongkong until May 1, - Leyte Asphalt acknowledged the orders for Australia document, containing admissions of the client, comes
1921. and San Francisco but stated that no orders would be to the hand of a third party, and reaches the adversary,
- No orders for less than one thousand (1,000) tons will entertained without a cash deposit. it is admissible in evidence.
be accepted except under special agreement with

32
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

- According to Wigmore: “Since the means of prescription, hence the proceedings were terminated. Judge Ciriaco Ariño that said perjury case in his court
preserving secrecy of communication are entirely in the Paredes was represented by Sansaet. did not reach arraignment since action was suspended
client's hands, and since the privilege is a derogation - Paredes was then haled before the Tanodbayan for PI pending the review of the case by the DOJ.
from the general testimonial duty and should be strictly on the charge that, by using his former position as - Respondents filed their counter-affidavits, but Sansaet
construed, it would be improper to extend its Provincial Attorney to influence and induce the Bureau subsequently discarded and repudiated the
prohibition to third persons who obtain knowledge of of Lands officials to favorably act on his application for submissions he had made. In an Affidavit of
the communications. One who overhears the free patent, he had violated Sec 3(a) of RA 3019. Explanations and Rectifications, Sansaet revealed that
communication, whether with or without the client's Sansaet was again Paredes' counsel.. Paredes contrived to have the graft case under
knowledge, is not within the protection of the privilege. - On Aug 29, 1988, the Tanodbayan, issued a resolution preliminary investigation dismissed on the ground of
The same rule ought to apply to one who surreptitiously recommending the criminal prosecution of Paredes. double jeopardy by making it appear that the perjury
reads or obtains possession of a document in original or Sansaet, as counsel, moved for reconsideration, saying: case had been dismissed by the trial court after he had
copy.” . . . respondent had been charged already by the been arraigned. For that purpose, the documents which
Disposition Judgment reversed complainants before the Municipal Circuit Court of were later filed by Sansaet in the preliminary
San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, went to jail on investigation were prepared and falsified by his co-
PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN (Honrada; Paredes; detention in 1984 under the same set of facts and respondents in the house of Paredes.
Sansaet) the same evidence . . . but said case after - To evade responsibility for his own participation in the
G.R. Nos 115439-41 arraignment, was ordered dismissed by the court scheme, Sansaet claimed that he did so upon the
REGALADO; July 16, 1997 upon recommendation of the Department of instigation and inducement of Paredes. This was
(kooky) Justice. Copy of the dismissal order, certificate of intended to pave the way for his discharge as a
arraignment and the recommendation of the government witness.
NATURE: Department of Justice are hereto attached for - in a resolution dated Feb 24, 1992, the Ombudsman
Special civil action for certiorari ready reference; thus the filing of this case will be approved the filing of falsification charges against
a case of double jeopardy for respondent Honrada, Paredes and Sansaet. The proposal for the
FACTS: herein . . . discharge of Sansaet as a state witness was rejected by
- Mansueta Honrada was the Clerk of Court and Acting - A criminal case was subsequently filed with the Ombudsman on this evaluative legal position:
Stenographer of the First MCTC, San Francisco- Sandiganbayan, charging Paredes with violation of Sec . . . Taking his explanation, it is difficult to believe
Bunawan-Rosario in Agusan del Sur. Ceferino Paredes 3 (a) of RA 3019. However, a motion to quash was later that a lawyer of his stature, in the absence of
was successively the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del granted and the case was dismissed on the ground of deliberate intent to conspire, would be unwittingly
Sur, then Governor, and is at present a Congressman. prescription. induced by another to commit a crime. As counsel
Generoso Sansaet was a practicing attorney who - On Jan 23, 1990, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer who had for the accused in those criminal cases, Atty.
served as counsel for Paredes in several instances initiated the perjury and graft charges against Paredes, Sansaet had control over the case theory and the
pertinent to the criminal charges involved herein. sent a letter to the Ombudsman seeking the evidence which the defense was going to present.
- in 1976, Paredes applied for a free patent over a lot of investigation of the three respondents herein for Moreover, the testimony or confession of Atty.
Rosario Public Land Subd Survey. This was approved falsification of public documents. He claimed that Sansaet falls under the mantle of privileged
and an OCT was issued in his favor. Honrada, in conspiracy with Paredes and Sansaet, communication between the lawyer and his client
- in 1985, Director of Lands filed an action for the simulated and certified as true copies certain which may be objected to, if presented in the trial.
cancellation of Paredes' patent and certificate of title documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment, - The Ombudsman refused to reconsider that resolution
since the land had been designated and reserved as a dated July 1, 1985, and transcripts of stenographic and, ostensibly to forestall any further controversy, he
school site in the subdivision survey. The TC nullified notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of decided to file separate informations for falsification of
the patent and title after finding that Paredes had Paredes on the perjury charge. These falsified public documents against each of the respondents.
obtained the same through fraudulent documents were annexed to Paredes' motion for Thus, three criminal cases were filed in the graft court.
misrepresentations in his application. Sansaet served reconsideration of the Tanodbayan resolution for the These were consolidated for joint trial in the
as counsel of Paredes in that civil case. filing of a graft charge against him, in order to support Sandiganbayan.
- upon the subsequent complaint of the Sangguniang his contention that the same would constitute double - a motion was filed by the People on July 27, 1993 for
Bayan, an information for perjury was filed against jeopardy. the discharge of Sansaet as a state witness. It was
Paredes in the MCTC. Provincial Fiscal was, however, - Gelacio attached to his letter a certification that no submitted that all the requisites, as provided in Sec 9,
directed by the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for notice of arraignment was ever received by the Office Rule 119 ROC, were satisfied insofar as Sansaet was
the dismissal of the case on the ground inter alia of of the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan del Sur in connection concerned. The basic postulate was that, except for the
with that perjury case; and a certification of Presiding eyewitness testimony of Sansaet, there was no other

33
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

direct evidence to prove the confabulated falsification and client and, further, in view of the purpose for which do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or in
of documents by Honrada and Paredes. such falsified documents were prepared, no word at all aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak
- Sandiganbayan resolved to deny the desired passed between Paredes and Sansaet on the subject of privileges ordinarily existing in reference to
discharge on this ratiocination: matter of that criminal act. The clincher for this communications between attorney and client.
From the evidence adduced, the opposition was conclusion is that the documents were thereafter filed The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet are
able to establish that client and lawyer relationship by Sansaet as annexes to the motion for the communications made to him by physical acts
existed between Atty. Sansaet and Ceferino reconsideration in the preliminary investigation of the and/or accompanying words of Parades at the time he
Paredes, Jr., before, during and after the period graft case before the Tanodbayan. Also, the acts and and Honrada, either with the active or passive
alleged in the information. In view of such words of the parties during the period when the participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the
relationship, the facts surrounding the case, and documents were being falsified were necessarily process of falsifying, the documents which were later
other confidential matter must have been confidential since Paredes would not have invited filed in the Tanodbayan and culminated in the criminal
disclosed by accused Paredes, as client, to accused Sansaet to his house and allowed him to witness the charges now pending in Sandiganbayan. Clearly,
Sansaet, as his lawyer in his professional capacity. same except under conditions of secrecy and therefore, the confidential communications made by
Therefore, the testimony of Atty. Sansaet on the confidence. Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in
facts surrounding the offense charged in the b. It is postulated that a distinction must be made reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet
information is privileged. between confidential communications relating to past been committed in the past by Paredes but which he, in
crimes already committed, and future crimes intended confederacy with his co-respondents, later committed.
ISSUES: to be committed, by the client. The announced Having been made for purposes of a future offense,
1. WON the projected testimony of Sansaet, as intention of a client to commit a crime is not included those communications are outside the pale of the
proposed state witness, is barred by the attorney-client within the confidences which his attorney is bound to attorney-client privilege.
privilege respect. Respondent court appears, however, to believe c. Furthermore, Sansaet was himself a conspirator in
2. WON, as a consequence thereof, he is eligible for that it is here dealing with a past crime, and that the commission of that crime of falsification which he,
discharge to testify as a particeps criminis Sansaet is set to testify on alleged criminal acts of Paredes and Honrada concocted and foisted upon the
Paredes and Honrada that have already been authorities. It is well settled that in order that a
HELD: committed and consummated. communication between a lawyer and his client may be
1. NO. The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in It is true that by now, insofar as the falsifications to be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in
these cases, as the facts and actuations of both testified to are concerned, those crimes were furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an
respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule. necessarily committed in the past. But for the unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
a. It may be assumed that there was a confidential application of the attorney-client privilege, however, In fact, the "prosecution of the honorable relation of
communication made by Paredes to Sansaet in the period to be considered is the date when the attorney and client will not be permitted under the
connection with the criminal case for falsification, and privileged communication was made by the client to guise of privilege, and every communication made to
this may be expected since Paredes was the accused the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a
and Sansaet his counsel. The fact that Sansaet was the past or with respect to a crime intended to be conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only
called by Paredes and Honrada to witness the committed in the future. In other words, if the client lawful to divulge, but which the attorney under certain
preparation of the falsified documents was as eloquent seeks his lawyer's advice with respect to a crime that circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the
a communication, if not more than, as verbal the former has committed, he is given the protection of interest of justice."
statements by Paredes as to the fact and purpose of a virtual confessional seal which the attorney-client It was error for Sandiganbayan to insist that such
such falsification. It is significant that the evidentiary privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney unlawful communications intended for an illegal
rule on this point has always referred to "any without the client's consent. The same privileged purpose contrived by conspirators are nonetheless
communication," without distinction or qualification. confidentiality, however, does not attach with regard to covered by the so-called mantle of privilege. To prevent
In the American jurisdiction, there is no particular mode a crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of a
by which a confidential communication shall be made in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the crime which was later committed pursuant to a
by a client to his attorney. The privilege is not confined lawyer's advice. conspiracy, because of the objection thereto of his
to verbal or written communications made by the client Statements and communications regarding the conspiring client, would be one of the worst travesties
to his attorney but extends as well to information commission of a crime already committed, made by a in the rules of evidence and practice in the noble
communicated by the client to the attorney by other party who committed it, to an attorney, consulted as profession of law.
means. such, are privileged communications. Contrarily, the 2. YES
Nor can it be pretended that during the entire process, unbroken stream of judicial dicta is to the effect that - Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification,
considering their past and existing relations as counsel communications between attorney and client having to and the rule is that since in a conspiracy the act of one

34
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

is the act of all, the same penalty shall be imposed on REGALA VS SANDIGANBAYAN - August 20, 1991, PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit Third
all members of the conspiracy. One of the requirements G.R. No. 105938 Amended Complaint" and "Third Amended Complaint"
for a state witness is that he "does not appear to be the KAPUNAN; September 20, 1996 which excluded private respondent Raul S. Roco from
most guilty" and not that he must be the least guilty as (eva) the complaint in Civil Case No. 0033 as party-
is so often erroneously framed or submitted. The query defendant. Respondent PCGG based its exclusion of
would then be whether an accused who was held guilty NATURE private respondent Roco as party-defendant on his
by reason of membership in a conspiracy is eligible to Petition for Certiorari undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the
be a state witness. The rule of equality in the penalty to principal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder
be imposed upon conspirators found guilty of a criminal FACTS in the companies involved in Civil Case No. 0033.
offense is based on the concurrence of criminal intent - The matters raised here are an offshoot of the - Petitioners were included in the Third Amended
in their minds and translated into concerted physical institution of the Complaint on July 31, 1987 before the Complaint on the strength of the following allegations:
action although of varying acts or degrees of depravity. Sandiganbayan by RP, through the PCGG against Defendants Cojuangco, Angara, Concepcion, Regala,
Since the RPC is based on the classical school of Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal Cruz, Vinluan, Escueta, Hayudini and Roco of ACCRA
thought, it is the identity of the mens rea which is defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten plotted, devised, schemed. conspired and
considered the predominant consideration and, wealth, which includes shares of stocks in the named confederated with each other in setting up, through the
therefore, warrants the imposition of the same penalty corporations in PCGG Case entitled "RP vs. Eduardo use of the coconut levy funds, the financial and
on the consequential theory that the act of one is Cojuangco, et al." (Civil Case No.0033). corporate framework and structures that led to the
thereby the act of all. This is an affair of substantive - Among the defendants named in the case are herein establishment of UCPB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE,
law which should not be equated with the procedural petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino COCOMARK, CIC, and more than twenty other coconut
rule on the discharge of particeps criminis. This V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor levy funded corporations, including the acquisition of
adjective device is based on other considerations, such P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, San Miguel Corporation shares and its
as the need for giving immunity to one of them in order and herein private respondent Raul S. Roco, who all institutionalization through presidential directives of the
that not all shall escape, and the judicial experience were then partners of the law firm Angara, Abello, coconut monopoly. Through insidious means and
that the candid admission of an accused regarding his Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA Law machinations, ACCRA, being the wholly-owned
participation is a guaranty that he will testify truthfully. Firm). investment arm, ACCRA Investments Corporation,
For those reasons, the Rules provide for certain - ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its became the holder of approximately 15M shares
qualifying criteria which, again, are based on judicial clients, which included, among others, the organization representing roughly 3.3% of the total outstanding
experience distilled into a judgmental policy. and acquisition of business associations and/or capital stock of UCPB as of March 1987. This ranks
b. The other requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as a organizations, with the correlative and incidental ACCRA Investments Corporation number 44 among the
state witness are present and should have been services where its members acted as incorporators, or top 100 biggest stockholders of UCPB which has
favorably appreciated by the Sandiganbayan. Sansaet simply, as stockholders. More specifically, in the approximately 1.4M shareholders. On the other hand,
is the only cooperative eyewitness to the actual performance of these services, the members of the law corporate books show the name Edgardo J. Angara as
commission of the falsification charged in the criminal firm delivered to its client documents which holding approximately 3,744 shares as of February,
cases, and the prosecution is faced with the formidable substantiate the client's equity holdings, i.e., stock 1984.
task of establishing the guilt of the two other co- certificates endorsed in blank representing the shares - In their answer ACCRA lawyers alleged that:
respondents who steadfastly deny the charge and registered in the client's name, and a blank deed of > Defendants-ACCRA lawyers’ participation in the acts
stoutly protest their innocence. There is thus no other trust or assignment covering said shares. In the course with which their co-defendants are charged, was in
direct evidence available for the prosecution, hence of their dealings with their clients, the members of the furtherance of legitimate lawyering.
there is absolute necessity for the testimony of law firm acquire information relative to the assets of > In the course of rendering professional and legal
Sansaet. He has indicated his conformity thereto and clients as well as their personal and business services to clients, defendants became holders of
has, for the purposes required by the Rules, detailed circumstances. shares of stock in the corporations listed under their
the substance of his projected testimony in his Affidavit - As members of the ACCRA Law Firm, petitioners and respective names as incorporating or acquiring
of Explanation and Rectifications. His testimony can respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the stockholders only and, as such, they do not claim any
also be substantially corroborated on its material points organization and acquisition of the companies included proprietary interest in the said shares of stock.
by reputable witnesses. Moreover, it does not appear in Civil Case No. 0033, and in keeping with the office > Defendant Cruz was one of the incorporators in 1976
that Sansaet has at any time been convicted of any practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees- of Mermaid Marketing Corporation, which was
offense involving moral turpitude. stockholders of the said corporations involved in organized for legitimate business purposes not related
Disposition Writ of certiorari is granted sequestration proceedings. to the allegations of the expanded Amended
Complaint. However, he has long ago transferred any

35
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

material interest therein and therefore denies that the Supreme Court's ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan as would make the classification reasonable under the
‘shares’ appearing in his name are his assets. (173 SCRA 72). equal protection clause.
- Petitioner Hayudini, who had separated from ACCRA, The PCGG has apparently offered to the ACCRA lawyers C) Sandiganbayan sanctioned favoritism and undue
filed a separate answer denying the allegations in the the same conditions availed of by Roco; full disclosure preference in favor of Mr. Roco in violation of the equal
complaint implicating him in the alleged ill-gotten in exchange for exclusion from these proceedings. The protection clause.
wealth. ACCRA lawyers have preferred not to make the
- ACCRA lawyers subsequently filed their "COMMENT disclosures required by the PCGG. HELD
AND/OR OPPOSITION" with Counter-Motion that The ACCRA lawyers cannot, therefore, begrudge the 1. YES
respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to PCGG for keeping them as party defendants. In the Ratio It would seem that petitioners are merely
them (exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded same vein, they cannot compel the PCGG to be standing in for their clients as defendants in the
Roco. accorded the same treatment accorded to Roco. complaint. Petitioners are being prosecuted solely on
- In its "Comment," PCGG set the following conditions WHEREFORE, the Counter Motion for the same the basis of activities and services performed in the
precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, namely: (a) treatment by the PCGG as accorded to Raul S. Roco is course of their duties as lawyers. Quite obviously,
the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) DENIED. petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in the complaint
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer- - ACCRA lawyers moved for a reconsideration of the is merely being used as leverage to compel them to
client relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds above resolution but the same was denied by the name their clients and consequently to enable the
of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its respondent Sandiganbayan. Hence, the ACCRA lawyers PCGG to nail these clients. Such being the case,
clients covering their respective shareholdings. filed the petition for certiorari. respondent PCGG has no valid cause of action as
- Consequently, PCGG presented supposed proof to - Hayudini filed a separate petition for certiorari on the against petitioners and should exclude them from the
substantiate compliance by Roco of the conditions same grounds averred by petitioners ACCRA lawyers. Third Amended Complaint.
precedent to warrant the latter's exclusion as party- - PCGG refutes petitioners' contention, alleging that the Reasoning It is quite apparent that petitioners were
defendant in Civil Case No. 0033: (a) Letter to PCGG of revelation of the identity of the client is not within the impleaded by the PCGG as co-defendants to force them
the counsel of Roco reiterating a previous request for ambit of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege, nor to disclose the identity of their clients. Clearly,
reinvestigation by the PCGG in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil are the documents it required (deeds of assignment) respondent PCGG is not after petitioners but the
Case No. 0033); (b) Affidavit executed by Roco as protected, because they are evidence of nominee “bigger fish” as they say in street parlance. This ploy is
Attachment to the letter aforestated; and (c) Letter of status. quite clear from the PCGG’s willingness to cut a deal
the Roco, Bunag, and Kapunan Law Offices to the PCGG with petitioners -- the names of their clients in
in behalf Roco originally requesting the reinvestigation ISSUES exchange for exclusion from the complaint. The
and/or re-examination of the evidence of the PCGG 1. WON Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in statement of the Sandiganbayan in its questioned
against Roco in PCGG Case No. 33. subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who undisputably resolution dated March 18, 1992 is explicit:
- during said proceedings, Roco did not refute acted as lawyers in serving as nominee-stockholders, to “ACCRA lawyers may take the heroic stance of not
petitioners' contention that he did not actually reveal the strict application of the law of agency. revealing the identity of the client for whom they have
the identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. 33, 2. WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of acted, i.e., their principal, and that will be their choice.
nor had he undertaken to reveal the identity of the discretion in not holding that, under the facts of this But until they do identify their clients, considerations of
client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder. case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners whether or not the privilege claimed by the ACCRA
- Sandiganbayan promulgated the Resolution, herein ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their lawyers exists cannot even begin to be debated. The
questioned, denying the exclusion of petitioners in client(s) and the other information requested by the ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse themselves from the
PCGG Case No. 33, for their refusal to comply with the PCGG. consequences of their acts until they have begun to
conditions required by respondent PCGG. 3. WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of establish the basis for recognizing the privilege; the
- This is what appears to be the cause for which they discretion in not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers existence and identity of the client.”
have been impleaded by the PCGG as defendants and Mr. Roco as similarly situated and, therefore, 2. YES.
herein. deserving of equal treatment. Ratio As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity
> The PCGG is satisfied that Roco has demonstrated A) There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Roco had should not be shrouded in mystery. Under this premise,
his agency and that Roco has apparently identified his revealed, or had undertaken to reveal, the identities of the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the
principal, which revelation could show the lack of the client(s) for whom he acted as nominee- United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the
cause against him. This in turn has allowed the PCGG stockholder. privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of
to exercise its power both under the rules of Agency B) Even assuming that Mr. Roco had revealed, or had his client. The reasons advanced for the general rule
and under Section 5 of E.O. No. 14-A in relation to the undertaken to reveal, the identities of the client(s), the are well established.
disclosure does not constitute a substantial distinction

36
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

First, the court has a right to know that the client or the substance (without which there would be no case against the latter. The reason for the first rule is
whose privileged information is sought to be protected attorney-client relationship). that it is not within the professional character of a
is flesh and blood. Second, the privilege begins to exist The link between the alleged criminal offense and the lawyer to give advice on the commission of a crime.
only after the attorney-client relationship has been legal advice or legal service sought was duly The reason for the second has been stated in the cases
established. The attorney-client privilege does not established in the case at bar, by no less than the above discussed and are founded on the same policy
attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege PCGG itself. The key lies in the three specific grounds for which the attorney-client privilege, in
generally pertains to the subject matter of the conditions laid down by the PCGG which constitutes general, exists.
relationship. Finally, due process considerations require petitioners’ ticket to non-prosecution should they - In fine, the crux of petitioners' objections ultimately
that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know accede thereto: the disclosure of the identity of its hinges on their expectation that if the prosecution has
his adversary. clients; submission of documents substantiating the a case against their clients, the latter's case should be
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule lawyer-client relationship; and the submission of the built upon evidence painstakingly gathered by them
is however qualified by some important exceptions. deeds of assignment petitioners executed in favor of from their own sources and not from compelled
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong their clients covering their respective shareholdings. testimony requiring them to reveal the name of their
probability exists that revealing the client's name would From these conditions, particularly the third, we can clients, information which unavoidably reveals much
implicate that client in the very activity for which he readily deduce that the clients indeed consulted the about the nature of the transaction which may or may
sought the lawyer's advice. petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers, regarding the not be illegal. A lawyer cannot reveal such
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil financial and corporate structure, framework and set-up communication without exposing himself to charges of
liability, his identity is privileged. of the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners violating a principle which forms the bulwark of the
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case gave their professional advice in the form of, among entire attorney-client relationship.
against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the others, the aforementioned deeds of assignment - We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' right not
client's name, the said name would furnish the only link covering their clients’ shareholdings. to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the
that would form the chain of testimony necessary to There is no question that the preparation of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their clients, because
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is aforestated documents was part and parcel of the facts of the instant case clearly fall within
privileged. petitioners’ legal service to their clients. More recognized exceptions to the rule that the client’s name
Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other important, it constituted an integral part of their duties is not privileged information. By compelling petitioners,
situations which could qualify as exceptions to the as lawyers. Petitioners, therefore, have a legitimate not only to reveal the identity of their clients, but
general rule. For example, the content of any client fear that identifying their clients would implicate them worse, to submit to the PCGG documents substantiating
communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it in the very activity for which legal advice had been the client-lawyer relationship, as well as deeds of
is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten assignment petitioners executed in favor of its clients
on which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, wealth in the aforementioned corporations. covering their respective shareholdings, the PCGG
where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has - Furthermore, under the third main exception, would exact from petitioners a link “that would
been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is revelation of the client's name would obviously provide inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to
intended to be confidential, the identity of the client the necessary link for the prosecution to build its case, convict the (client) of a crime.”
has been held to be privileged, since such revelation where none otherwise exists. It is the link, in the words LEGAL ETHICS; LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; BOUND
would otherwise result in disclosure and the entire of Baird, “that would inevitably form the chain of BY RULES, ETHICAL CONDUCT AND DUTIES;
transaction. Summarizing these exceptions, testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a... RATIONALE:
information relating to the identity of a client may fall crime." In the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are
within the ambit of the privilege when the client's name - An important distinction must be made between a rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into
itself has an independent significance, such that case where a client takes on the services of an attorney it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is
disclosure would then reveal client confidences. for illicit purposes, seeking advice about how to go of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character,
Reasoning The circumstances involving the around the law for the purpose of committing illegal requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith,
engagement of lawyers in the case at bench, therefore, activities and a case where a client thinks he might that is required by reason of necessity and public
clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least have previously committed something illegal and interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from
two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of consults his attorney about it. These cases may be seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is
the alleged client's name would lead to establish said readily distinguished, because the privilege cannot be fatal to the administration of justice. It is also the strict
client's connection with the very fact in issue of the invoked or used as a shield for an illegal act, as in the sence of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that
case, which is privileged information, because the first example; while the prosecution may not have a distinguishes him from any other professional in
privilege, as stated earlier, protects the subject matter case against the client in the second example and society. This conception is entrenched and embodies
cannot use the attorney client relationship to build up a centuries of established and stable tradition.

37
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

Considerations favoring confidentiality in lawyer-client - Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 20. It is defendant was his promise to disclose the identities of
relationships are many and serve several constitutional the duty of an attorney: the clients in question. However, respondents failed to
and policy concerns. In the constitutional sphere, the (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every show - and absolutely nothing exists in the records of
privilege gives flesh to one of the most sacrosanct peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, the case at bar - that private respondent actually
rights available to the accused, the right to counsel. If and to accept no compensation in connection with his revealed the identity of his client(s) to the PCGG. Since
a client were made to choose between legal client’s business except from him or with his knowledge the undertaking happens to be the leitmotif of the
representation without effective communication and and approval. entire arrangement between Mr. Roco and the PCGG,
disclosure and legal representation with all his secrets - This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the an undertaking which is so material as to have justified
revealed then he might be compelled, in some Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that: PCGG's special treatment exempting the private
instances, to either opt to stay away from the judicial Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his respondent from prosecution, respondent
system or to lose the right to counsel. If the price of client and he shall be mindful of the trust and Sandiganbayan should have required proof of the
disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self confidence reposed in him. undertaking more substantial than a "bare assertion"
incrimination, then the flow of information would be - Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also that private respondent did indeed comply with the
curtailed thereby rendering the right practically demands a lawyer's fidelity to client: The lawyer owes undertaking. Instead, as manifested by the PCGG, only
nugatory. The threat this represents against another "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal three documents were submitted for the purpose, two
sacrosanct individual right, the right to be presumed in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the of which were mere requests for re-investigation and
innocent is at once self-evident. Encouraging full exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end one simply disclosed certain clients which petitioners
disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by (ACCRA lawyers) were themselves willing to reveal.
opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options the rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial These were clients to whom both petitioners and
which would otherwise be circumscribed by limited disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from private respondent rendered legal services while all of
information engendered by a fear of disclosure. An the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the them were partners at ACCRA, and were not the clients
effective lawyer-client relationship is largely between client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy which the PCGG wanted disclosed for the alleged
lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, questioned transactions.
which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such To justify the dropping of the private respondent from
flow of information. It necessarily follows that in order remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in the case or the filing of the suit in the respondent court
to attain effective representation, the lawyer must mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be without him, therefore, the PCGG should conclusively
invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a performed within and not without the bounds of the show that Mr. Roco was treated as a species apart from
matter of duty and professional responsibility. law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less the rest of the ACCRA lawyers on the basis of a
- In our jurisdiction, this privilege takes off from the old does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or classification which made substantial distinctions based
Code of Civil Procedure. Section 383 specifically any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his on real differences. No such substantial distinctions
“forbids counsel, without authority of his client to own conscience and not that of his client. exist from the records of the case at bench, in violation
reveal any communication made by the client to him or 3. YES of the equal protection clause.
his advice given thereon in the course of professional Ratio As to the bare statement that Roco merely acted - The equal protection clause is a guarantee which
employment.” as a lawyer and nominee, a statement made in his out- provides a wall of protection against uneven application
- Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of of-court settlement with the PCGG, it is sufficient to of statutes and regulations. In the broader sense, the
Court, the attorney-client privilege, as currently worded state that petitioners have likewise made the same guarantee operates against uneven application of legal
provides: Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of claim not merely out-of- court but also in their Answer norms so that all persons under similar circumstances
privileged communication. - The following persons to plaintiff's Expanded Amended Complaint, signed by would be accorded the same treatment. Those who fall
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in counsel, claiming that their acts were made in within a particular class ought to be treated alike not
the following cases: An attorney cannot, without the furtherance of "legitimate lawyering.” Being "similarly only as to privileges granted but also as to the liabilities
consent of his client, be examined as to any situated" in this regard, public respondents must show imposed.
communication made by the client to him, or his advice that there exist other conditions and circumstances
given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, which would warrant their treating the private DISPOSITIVE
professional employment, can an attorney’s secretary, respondent differently from petitioners in the case at We find that the condition precedent required by the
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the bench in order to evade a violation of the equal respondent PCGG of the petitioners for their exclusion
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any protection clause of the Constitution. as parties-defendants in PCGG Case No. 33 violates the
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such Reasoning To this end, public respondents contend lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. The condition
capacity. that the primary consideration behind their decision to also constitutes a transgression by respondents
sustain the PCGG's dropping of private respondent as a Sandiganbayan and PCGG of the equal protection

38
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

clause of the Constitution. It is grossly unfair to exempt defendants in Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo our shores for an authority that the lawyer-client
one similarly situated litigant from prosecution without Cojuangco, Jr., et al.. privilege cannot be invoked to prevent the disclosure of
allowing the same exemption to the others. Moreover, a client's identity where the lawyer and the client are
the PCGG’s demand not only touches upon the question Dissenting Opinion conspirators in the commission of a crime or a fraud.
of the identity of their clients but also on documents Under our jurisdiction, lawyers are mandated not to
related to the suspected transactions, not only in DAVIDE: counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
violation of the attorney-client privilege but also of the The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client or at lessening confidence in the legal system (Rule
constitutional right against self-incrimination. relationship is not a cause to exclude a party. It is 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility) and
Whichever way one looks at it, this is a fishing merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (Sec. to employ only fair and honest means to attain the
expedition, a free ride at the expense of such rights. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court) and may only be invoked lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01, Canon 19,
An argument is advanced that the invocation by at the appropriate time, i.e., when a lawyer is under Id). And under the Canons of Professional Ethics, a
petitioners of the privilege of attorney-client compulsion to answer as witness, as when, having lawyer must steadfastly bear in mind that his great
confidentiality at this stage of the proceedings is taken the witness stand, he is questioned as to such trust is to be performed within and not without the
premature and that they should wait until they are confidential communication or advice, or is being bounds of the law (Canon 15, Id.), that he advances the
called to testify and examine as witnesses as to otherwise judicially coerced to produce, through honor of his profession and the best interest of his
matters learned in confidence before they can raise subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, letters or other client when he renders service or gives advice tending
their objections. But petitioners are not mere documents containing the same privileged matter. to impress upon the client when he renders service or
witnesses. They are co-principals in the case for - Hypothetically admitting the allegations in the gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his
recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. They have made complaint in Civil Case No. 0033, I find myself unable to undertaking exact compliance with the strictest
their position clear from the very beginning that they agree with the majority opinion that the petitioners are principles of moral law (Canon 32, Id.). These canons
are not willing to testify and they cannot be compelled immune from suit or that they have to be excluded as strip a lawyer of the lawyer-client, privilege whenever
to testify in view of their constitutional right against defendants, or that they cannot be compelled to reveal he conspires with the client in the commission of a
self-incrimination and of their fundamental legal right or disclose the identity of their principals, all because of crime or a fraud.
to maintain inviolate the privilege of attorney-client the sacred lawyer-client privilege. This privilege is well
confidentiality. put in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The majority PUNO:
It is clear then that the case against petitioners should seeks to expand the scope of the Philippine rule on the - The attorney-client privilege can never be used as a
never be allowed to take its full course in the lawyer-client privilege by copious citations of American shield to commit a crime or a fraud. Communications
Sandiganbayan. Petitioners should not be made to jurisprudence which includes in the privilege the to an attorney having for their object the commission of
suffer the effects of further litigation when it is obvious identity of the client under the exceptional situations a crime "x x x partake the nature of a conspiracy, and it
that their inclusion in the complaint arose from a narrated therein. From the plethora of cases cited, two is not only lawful to divulge such communications, but
privileged attorney-client relationship and as a means facts stand out in bold relief. Firstly, the issue of under certain circumstances it might become the duty
of coercing them to disclose the identities of their privilege contested therein arose in grand jury of the attorney to do so. The interests of public justice
clients. To allow the case to continue with respect to proceedings on different States, which are primarily require that no such shield from merited exposure shall
them when this Court could nip the problem in the bud proceedings before the filing of the case in court, and be interposed to protect a person who takes counsel
at this early opportunity would be to sanction an unjust we are not even told what evidentiary rules apply in the how he can safely commit a crime. The relation of
situation which we should not here countenance. The said hearings. In the present case, the privilege is attorney and client cannot exist for the purpose of
case hangs as a real and palpable threat, a proverbial invoked in the court where it was already filed. counsel in concocting crimes."
Sword of Damocles over petitioners' heads. It should Secondly, and more important, in the cases cited by the - As a general rule, the attorney-client privilege does
not be allowed to continue a day longer. majority, the lawyers concerned were merely not include the right of non-disclosure of client
While we are aware of respondent PCGG’s legal advocating the cause of their clients but were not identity. The general rule, however, admits of well-
mandate to recover ill-gotten wealth, we will not indicted for the charges against their said clients. etched exceptions which the Sandiganbayan failed to
sanction acts which violate the equal protection Here, the counsel themselves are co-defendants duly recognize. The general rule and its exceptions are
guarantee and the right against self-incrimination and charged in court as co-conspirators in the offenses accurately summarized in In re Grand Jury
subvert the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. charged. The cases cited by the majority evidently do Investigation. The Circuits have embraced various
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the not apply to them. "exceptions" to the general rule that the identity of a
Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are hereby - I wish to repeat and underscore the fact that the client is not within the protective ambit of an attorney-
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan lawyer-client privilege is not a shield for the client privilege. All such exceptions appear to be firmly
is further ordered to exclude petitioners as parties- commission of a crime or against the prosecution of the grounded in the Ninth Circuit's seminal decision in Baird
lawyer therefor. We do not even have to go beyond v. Koerner. 'The name of the client will be considered

39
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

privileged matter where the circumstances of the case (7) Schedule of devaluation of CB-premises of Paseo
are such that the name of the client is material only for de Roxas of same report;
the purpose of showing an acknowledgment of guilt on BANCO FILIPINO, vs. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.,
the part of such client of the very offenses on account G.R. No. 70054 (RESOLUTION) (8) Schedule of BF's assets from P5,159.44 B to
of which the attorney was employed.' 'A significant July 08, 1986 P3,909.23 B as of January 25, 1985;
exception to this principle of non-confidentiality holds (SJ)
that such information may be privileged when the (9) Documents listed in BF's letter to Mr. Carlota
person invoking the privilege is able to show that a NATURE Valenzuela dated October 25, 1985.
strong possibility exists that disclosure of the Petition for certiorari
information would implicate the client in the very In issuing the challenged order, the court below took
matter for which legal advice was sought in the first FACTS1 the view that the Supreme Court's resolution referring
case.' Another exception to the general rule that the It appears that due to the financial troubles of Banco to it the matters relative to the bank's closure does not
identity of a client is not privileged arises where Pilipino, it was placed under conservatorship by the preclude the petitioner from availing of his mode of
disclosure of the identity would be tantamount to Monetary Board. The Conservator Mr. TIAOQUI discovery as an additional means of preparing for the
disclosing an otherwise protected confidential tendered his report dated January 19, 1995. To hearing. IT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO
communication. To the general rule is an exception, adequately address the contents of the report, Banco BE PRODUCED AS NOT PRIVILEGED BECAUSE THESE
firmly embedded as the rule itself. The privilege may Filipino filed a motion for production of certain papers CONSTITUTE OR CONTAIN EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO THE
be recognized where so much of the actual and records invoking Rule 27.1.The documents asked ISSUE INTO BY THE COURT
communication has already been disclosed that to be produced, inspected, and copied are the
identification of the client amounts to disclosure of a following: Respondents Monetary Board and Central Bank take
confidential communication. The privilege may be (1) Copies of tapes and transcripts of the Monetary exception to the said order and pray in their petition
recognized where so much of the actual communication Board (MB) deliberations on the closure of Banco before this Court for the reversal and setting aside of
has already been disclosed [not necessarily by the Filipino (BF) and its meeting on July 27, 1984, and the same. It opined that the ratiocination of the trial
attorney, but by independent sources as well] that March 22, 1985; court is wholly in error because the proceedings before
identification of the client [or of fees paid] amounts to it, do not at all deal with either the administrative
disclosure of a confidential communication. Another (2) Copies of the letter and reports of first proceedings conducted by the respondents or the
exception, articulated in the Fifth Circuit's en banc conservator, Mr. Basilio Estanislao, to the MB and to regularity and impartiality of the CB actions on BF; it
decision of In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Pavlick) is Central Bank Governor Jose Fernandez; does so simply upon the charge that no "hearing" was
recognized when disclosure of the identity of the client given BF prior to those actions of no "hearing" was
would provide the "last link" of evidence. (3) Papers showing computations of all the interests given BF prior to those actions of closure and
− The person claiming the privilege or its exception and penalties charged by the CB against BF; liquidation. However, no such prior hearing had been
has the obligation to present the underlying facts called as none is required by the law and by the
demonstrating the existence of the privilege. (4) Schedule of recommended valuation of reserves Supreme Court decisions in force to this date (Rural
When these facts can be presented only by per Mr. Tiaoqui's report dated March 19, 1995; Bank of Lucena, Inc. vs. Arca, 15 SCRA 66, and Rural
revealing the very information sought to be Bank of Bato vs. IAC, G.R. 65642, Oct. 15, 1984). It also
protected by the privilege, the procedure is for the (5) Adjustment per Annex "C" of Mr. Tiaoqui's report; argued that the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary
lawyer to move for an inspection of the evidence in Board deliberations are confidential pursuant to
and in camera hearing. The hearing can even be (6) Annexes "A", "B", and "C" of the joint report of Sections 13 and 15 of the Central Bank Act.2
in camera and ex-parte. Thus, it has been held Mr. Tiaoqui, Mr. Aurellano, and Mrs. Valenzuela;
that "a well-recognized means for an attorney to 2
Sec. 13. Withdrawal of persons having a personal
demonstrate the existence of an exception to the
interest. Whenever any member attending a meeting
general rule, while simultaneously preserving
of the Monetary Board has a material personal interest,
confidentiality of the identity of his client, is to 1
If you recall, we had an extensive discussion of Banco directly or indirectly, in the discussion or resolution of
move the court for an in camera ex-parte hearing.
Filipino case with Dean Carlota in connection with due any given matter, said member and must retire from
Without the proofs adduced in these in camera
process (whether a hearing is required on the Tiaoqui the meeting during the deliberation thereon. The
hearings, the Court has no factual basis to
report) and the substantial evidence rule re sufficiency subject matter, when resolved, and the fact that a
determine whether petitioners fall within any of the
of the Tiaoqui report as substantial evidence. Now we member had a personal interest in it, shall be made
exceptions to the general rule.
know, that in this round Banco Filipino won, only to lose available to the public. The minutes of the meeting
− later. hehe shall note the withdrawal of the member concerned.
40
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

authorize the production or inspection of privileged the courts from conducting an inquiry on said
matter, that is, books, papers which because of their deliberations when these are relevant or material to a
ISSUES confidential and privileged character could not be matter subject of a suit pending before it. The
Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse received in evidence" (27) CJS 224). "In passing on a disclosure is here not intended to obtain information for
of discretion when it granted the motion for production motion for discovery of documents, the courts should personal gain. There is no indication that such
of documents. be liberal in determining whether or not documents are disclosure would cause detriment to the government,
Whether or not the tapes and transcripts of the relevant to the subject matter of action" (Hercules to the bank or to third parties. Significantly, it is the
Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Powder Co. vs. Haas Co. U.S. Dist, Ct. Oct. 26, 1944, 9 bank itself here that is interested in obtaining what it
Filipino and its meetings on July 27, 1984, and March Fed. Rules Service, 659, cited in Moran, Comments on considers as information useful and indispensably
22, 1985, are privileged communication that may not the Rules of Court, 1979 Ed. Vol. 2, p. 102). Likewise, needed by it to support its position in the matter being
be inquired into. "any statute declaring in general terms that official inquired to by the court below.
records are confidential should be liberally construed, REASONING
HELD to have an implied exception for disclosure when As to the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board
1. NO. needed in a court the case of Marbury vs. Madison, 1 deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino and its
RATIO Cr. 137, 143). meetings on July 27, 1984, and March 22, 1985, (Item
The motion for the production of the subject documents No. 1), respondents contend that "it is obvious from the
was filed by petitioner pursuant to Section 1, Rule 27, REASONING requirement (Sections 13 and 15 of the Central Bank
of the Rules of Court. It has been held that "a party is With respect to Items Nos. 3 to 9, these are the Act) that the subject matter ( of the deliberations),
ordinarily entitled to the production of books, annexes to the Supervision and Examination Sector, when resolved . . . shall be made available to the public
documents and papers which are material and relevant Dept. II (SES) Reports submitted to the Central Bank but the deliberations themselves are not open to
to the establishment of his cause of action or defense." and Monetary Board which were taken into disclosure but are to be kept in confidence."
(General Electric Co. vs. Superior Court in and for consideration by said respondents in closing petitioner
Alameda County, 45 C. 2nd 879, cited in Martin, Rules bank. A copy of the SES Reports was furnished to the On the other hand, respondents cite Section 21, Rule
of Court, 3rd edition, Vol. 2, p. 104). "The test to be petitioner. We, therefore, fail to see any proper reason 130, Rules of Court which states:
applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy why the annexes thereto should no withheld. Petitioner
of documents and the sufficiency of their description is cannot adequately study and properly analyze the "Section 21. Privilege Communications. The following
one of reasonableness and practicability" (Line Corp. of report without the corresponding annexes. Pertinent persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
the Philippines vs. Moran, 59 Phil. 176, 180). "On the and relevant, these could be useful and even necessary confidence in the following cases:
ground of public policy, the rules providing for to the preparation by petitioner of its comment, (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his
reproduction and inspection of books and papers do not objections and exceptions to the Conservator's reports term of office or afterwards, as to communications
and receiver's reports. made to him in official confidence, when the court finds
that the public interest would suffer by disclosure."
(As amended by PD No. 1827).
Regarding copies of the letter and reports of first
Conservator, Mr. Basilio Estanislao, to the Monetary BUT THIS PRIVILEGE, AS THIS COURT NOTES, IS
"Sec. 15. Responsibility. Any member of the
Board and to Central Bank Governor Fernandez these INTENDED NOT FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
Monetary Board or officer or employee of the Central
appear relevant as petitioner has asserted that the OFFICERS BUT FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
Bank who wilfully violates this Act or who is guilty of
above-named Conservator had in fact to resume INTEREST (Vogel vs. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311 cited in
gross negligence in the performance of his duties shall
normal operations of Banco Filipino but then he was Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed. Vol.
be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by the Bank
thereafter replaced by Mr. Gilberto Teodoro. The latter 5, p. 211). Where there is no public interest that would
as a result of such violation or negligence. Similar
and reports could be favorable or adverse to the case be prejudiced, this invoked rule will not be applicable.
responsibility shall apply to the disclosure of any
of petitioner but whatever the result may be, petitioner
information of a confidential nature about the
should be allowed to photocopy the same. "The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to
discussion or resolutions of the Monetary Board,
communications made to him in official confidence
except as required in Section 13 of this Act, or
2. NO. does not apply when there is nothing to show that the
about the operation of the Bank, and to the use
RATIO public interest would suffer by the disclosure question. .
of such information for personal gain or to the
The deliberations may be confidential but not . .", (Agnew vs. Agnew, 52 SD 472, cited in Martin Rules
detriment of the Government, the Bank or third
necessarily absolute and privileged. There is no of Court of the Philippines, Third Edition, Vol. 5, p. 199).
parties. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 72).
specific provision in the Central Bank Act, even in
mphasis supplied).
Section 13 and 15 thereof, which prohibits absolutely

41
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

In the case at bar, the respondents have not FACTS Respondent Executive Secretary Ermita et al., prayed
established that public interest would suffer by the for dismissal of petitions for lack of merit.
disclosure of the papers and documents sought by A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a
petitioner. Considering that petitioner bank was already truly republican state. Even in the early history of ISSUES
closed as of January 25, 1985, any disclosure of the republican thought, however, it has been recognized 1. WON the officials of the executive department
aforementioned letters, reports, and transcripts at this that the head of government may keep certain may evade the congressional inquiry by virtue
time pose no danger or peril to our economy. Neither information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. of EO 464 (WON EO 464 is valid)
will it trigger any bank run nor compromise state Explaining the reason for vesting executive power in
secrets. Respondent's reason for their resistance to the only one magistrate, a distinguished delegate to the HELD
order of production are tenuous and specious. If the U.S. Constitutional Convention said: "Decision, activity,
respondents public officials acted rightfully and secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the 1. Ratio It is impermissible to allow the executive
prudently in the performance of their duties, there proceedings of one man, in a much more eminent branch to withhold information sought by the Congress
should be nothing at all that would provoke fear of degree than the proceedings of any greater number; in aid of legislation, without it asserting a right to do so,
disclosure. and in proportion as the number is increased, these and without stating reasons therefor.
qualities will be diminished.History has been witness, − Although the executive Dept. enjoys the power of
On the contrary, public interests will be served by the however, to the fact that the power to withhold executive privilege, Congress nonetheless has the
disclosure of the documents. Not only the banks and its information lends itself to abuse, hence, the necessity right to know why the executive dept. considers
employees but also its numerous depositors and to guard it zealously. requested information privileged. E.O. 464 allows
creditors are entitled to be informed as to whether or the executive branch to evade congressional
not there was a valid and legal justification for the This is a consolidation of various petitions for certiorari
requests for information without the need of
petitioner's bank closure. It will be well to consider that and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of E.O.
clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering
no. 464 issued Sept. 28, 2005.Between Sept. of 2005 to
its reasons therefor. By mere expedient of invoking
"Public interest means more than a mere curiosity; it Feb. 2006, various Senate Investigation Committees
provisions of E.O. 464, the power of Congress is
means something ion which the public, the community issued invitations to various officials of the Executive
frustrated. Resort to any means by which officials
at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their Dept. including the AFP and PNP for them to appear in
of the executive branch could refuse to divulge
legal rights or liabilities are affected" (State vs. Crocket, public hearings on inquiries concerning mainly: (A) The
information cannot be presumed to be valid.
206, p. 816 cited in Words and Phrases, Vol. 35, p. alleged overpricing in the NorthRail Project (B) the

229). Wire-Tapping activity (C) the Fertilizer scam (D) the
Reasoning
Venable contract
Executive Privilege:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order to produce The respective officials of the Executive Dept. filed
documents dated February 17, 1986 issued by the requests for postponement of hearings for varying Schwartz - "the power of the Government to withhold
court below in S.C.-G.R. NO. 70054, is hereby affirmed, reasons such as existence of urgent operational information from the public, the courts, and the
except as to the copies of the tapes relative to the matters, more time to prepare a more comprehensive Congress."
Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco report, etc. Sen. Drilon, however, did not accede to Rozell-"the right of the President and high-level
Filipino on January 25, 1985 and its meeting on July 27, their requests because the requests were sent executive branch officers to withhold information from
1984, and March 22, 1985 and only if such tapes are belatedly and that preparations and arrangements Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public."
actually no longer available taking into account have already been completed. Tribe- while it is customary to employ the phrase
respondent Monetary Board's manifestations that the On Sept. 28, 2005, Pres. Arroyo issued E.O. 464 which "executive privilege," it may be more accurate to speak
tape recording of the deliberations of that Board are, took effect immediately. Citing E.O. 464, the Executive of executive privileges "since presidential refusals to
for purposes of economy, used over and over again Dept. officials subject to Senate investigations claimed furnish information may be actuated by any of at least
inasmuch as these tapes are not required to be kept or that they were not allowed to appear before any Senate three distinct kinds of considerations, and may be
stored. or Congressional hearings without consent (written asserted, with differing degrees of success, in the
approval) from the President, which had not been context of either judicial or legislative investigations."
granted unto them; their inability to attend due to lack
of appropriate clearance from the Pres. pursuant to 1.The state secrets privilege invoked by U.S.
SENATE V ERMITA
E.O. 464. Thereafter, several cases were filed Presidents, beginning with Washington, on the ground
GR 169777
challenging E.O. 464 and praying for the issuance of a that the information is of such nature that its disclosure
CARPIO-MORALES;April 20, 2006
TRO enjoining respondents from implementing, would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objectives.
(da)
enforcing, and observing the assailed order.

42
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

2.Informer's privilege, or the privilege of the the Watergate investigations. The claim of privilege In Chavez v. PCGG,the Court held that this jurisdiction
Government not to disclose the identity of persons who was based on the President's general interest in the recognizes the common law holding that there is a
furnish information of violations of law to officers confidentiality of his conversations and "governmental privilege against public disclosure with
charged with the enforcement of that law. correspondence. The U.S. Court held that while there is respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic
no explicit reference to a privilege of confidentiality in and other national security matters." The same case
3.A generic privilege for internal deliberations has been the U.S. Constitution, it is constitutionally based to the held that closed-door Cabinet meetings are also a
said to attach to intragovernmental documents extent that it relates to the effective discharge of a recognized limitation on the right to information.
reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and President's powers. The Court, nonetheless, rejected
deliberations comprising part of a process by which the President's claim of privilege, ruling that the Similarly, in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority the
governmental decisions and policies are formulated. privilege must be balanced against the public interest Court ruled that the right to information does not
in the fair administration of criminal justice. Notably, extend to matters recognized as "privileged
In re Sealed Case:Since the beginnings of our nation, information under the separation of powers," by which
executive officials have claimed a variety of privileges the Court was careful to clarify that it was not there
addressing the issue of claims of privilege in a civil the Court meant Presidential conversations,
to resist disclosure of information the confidentiality of correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
which they felt was crucial to fulfillment of the unique litigation or against congressional demands for
information. Cabinet meetings. It also held that information on
role and responsibilities of the executive branch of our military and diplomatic secrets and those affecting
government. Courts ruled early that the executive had In this jurisdiction, the doctrine of executive privilege national security, and information on investigations of
a right to withhold documents that might reveal was recognized by this Court in Almonte v. crimes by law enforcement agencies before the
military or state secrets. The courts have also granted Vasquez.Almonte used the term in reference to the prosecution of the accused were exempted from the
the executive a right to withhold the identity of same privilege subject of Nixon. It quoted the following right to information.
government informers in some circumstances and a portion of the Nixon decision which explains the basis
qualified right to withhold information related to for the privilege: Executive privilege, whether asserted against
pending investigations. x x x" Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only
"The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive
-This privilege, based on the constitutional doctrine of his conversations and correspondences, like the claim character. While executive privilege is a constitutional
separation of powers, exempts the executive from of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending
disclosure requirements applicable to the ordinary has all the values to which we accord deference for the on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in
citizen or organization where such exemption is privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition
necessary to the discharge of highly important necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, that executive officials are exempt from the duty to
executive responsibilities involved in maintaining objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in disclose information by the mere fact of being
governmental operations, and extends not only to Presidential decision-making. A President and those executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character
military and diplomatic secrets but also to documents who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in of the exemptions indicates that the presumption
integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive the process of shaping policies and making decisions inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor
domestic decisional and policy making functions, that and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to of disclosure.
is, those documents reflecting the frank expression express except privately. These are the considerations
necessary in intra-governmental advisory and justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential Validity of Specific EO 464 provisions
deliberative communications. communications. The privilege is fundamental to the - Sec. 1 of E.O. 464
operation of government and inextricably rooted in the Its requirement to secure presidential consent, limited
That a type of information is recognized as privileged only to executive dept. heads and to appearances in
does not, however, necessarily mean that it would be separation of powers under the Constitution x x x "
the question hour (because of its specific reference to
considered privileged in all instances. For in Almonte involved a subpoena duces tecum issued by sec. 22 of art VI) makes it valid on its face.
determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the the Ombudsman against the therein petitioners. It did - Sec. 2 (a) of E.O. 464
question that must be asked is not only whether the not involve, as expressly stated in the decision, the It merely provides guidelines binding only on the heads
requested information falls within one of the traditional right of the people to information. Nonetheless, the of office mentioned in section 2(b), on what is covered
privileges, but also whether that privilege should be Court recognized that there are certain types of by the executive privilege. It does not purport to be
honored in a given procedural setting. information which the government may withhold from conclusive on the other branches of government. It
U.S. v. Nixon:In issue in that case was the validity of the public, thus acknowledging, in substance if not in may be construed as a mere expression of opinion by
President Nixon's claim of executive privilege against a name, that executive privilege may be claimed against the Pres. regarding the nature and scope of executive
subpoena issued by a district court requiring the citizens demands for information. privilege.
production of certain tapes and documents relating to - Sec. 2 (b) of E.O. 464

43
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

Provides that once the head of office determines that a actually through a series of purchases tracing back to the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and
certain info. is privileged, such determination is the original owner, Pedro Clemena y Conde). Irene filed because of strong reasons to support its stand, may
presumed to bear the President’s authority and has the a complaint to recover the property, which was in relieve a party from the consequences of his admission
effect of prohibiting the official from appearing before possession of Pedro. In his answer, Pedro alleged that Reasoning: Pedro himself alleged in his answer that
Congress, only to the express pronouncement of the the land was his by purchase and that it was in his the land was in his exclusive possession. Such took on
Pres. that it is allowing the appearance of such official. exclusive possession. the character of a judicial admission which cannot be
It allows the Pres. to authorize claims of privilege by - Both the original parties died thereafter and were contracted except through showing that it was made
mere silence, and such presumptive authorization is succeeded by their respective heirs. through palpable mistake or no such admission was
contrary to the exceptional nature of the privilege. Due - RTC: Irene owned the land, but in the MFR, RTC made. The heirs of pedro, as mere substituting
to the fact that executive privilege is of extraordinary reversed and said that both parties failed to prove their defendants, are bound by the admissions made by
power, the Pres. may not authorize its subordinates to respective claims of ownership and ruled that the land pedro himself.
exercise it. Such power must be wielded only by the still belonged to the original owner Pedro Clemena y -further, the question of possession is a question of
highest official in the executive hierarchy. Conde. fact, the findings of which SC should not disturb
- Sec. 3 of E.O. 464 - CA: reversed resolution of RTC and ruled that Irene
Requires all public officials enumerated in section 2(b) was the rightful owner. CA also ordered Heirs of Pedro 1.b. NO (testimony was not self-serving, thus not an
to secure the consent of the President prior to to pay heirs of Irene P118k in damages as improper basis for the award of damages)
appearing before either house of Congress. The compensation for having been deprived of possession Ratio: “Self-serving evidence” is not to be taken
enumeration is broad. It is invalid per se. In so far as it and the owner’s share in the harvest. CA based the literally to mean any evidence that serves its
does not assert but merely implies the claim of award on the testimony of Gregorio Clemena, the proponent’s interest. The term, if used with any legal
executive privilege. It does not provide precise and husband of Irene, which essentially declared that the sense, refers only to acts or declarations made by a
certain reasons for the claim. Mere invocation of E.O. average share of the owner in the harvest was 50 party in his own interest at some place and time out of
464 coupled with an announcement that the President cavans of palay, that the Pedro (or his heirs upon his court, and it does not include testimony that he gives
has not given her consent, is woefully insufficient for death) were the ones who received the owner’s share, as a witness in court.
Congress to determine whether the withholding of and that the price of palay had gone up after the war, Reasoning: “Self-serving evidence,” perhaps owing to
information is justified under the circumstances of each from P15 to P25. its descriptive formulation, is a concept much
case, severely frustrating its power of inquiry. - Heirs of Pedro now assail the judgment of CA ordering misunderstood. Not infrequently, the term is employed
them to pay compensation for deprivation of as a weapon to devalue and discredit a party’s
possession and the owner’s share in the harvest. They testimony favorable to his cause. That, it seems, is the
Decision Petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. Sections 2(b) no longer dispute Irene’s ownership of the property. sense in which petitioners are using it now.
and 3 of E.O. 464 are declared void while sections 1 However, they claim they cannot be held liable to the - Evidence of this sort (self-serving) is excluded on the
and 2(a) are VALID. heirs of Irene for the harvest because (1) they never same ground as any hearsay evidence, that is, lack of
took possession of the property and (2) the evidence opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party
the CA relied on to determine the amount of damages, and on the consideration that its admission would open
proceeding as it did from one of the heirs of Irene, was the door to fraud and fabrication. In contrast, a party’s
Admissions and Confessions self-serving and therefore could not have been a proper testimony in court is sworn and subject to cross-
basis for such award. examination by the other party, and therefore, not
susceptible to an objection on the ground that it is self-
HEIRS OF PEDRO CLEMENA Y ZURBANO ISSUE/S: serving.
V HEIRS OF IRENE BIEN 1. WON the heirs of Pedro should not be ordered to pay - At any rate, petitioners never alleged, nor tried to
G.R. 155508 the damages awarded by CA for the reason that: show, that Gregorio’s testimony was inaccurate or
CORONA; September 11, 2006 a. they never took possession of the property untrue. Petitioners’ objection is founded solely on the
(maia) b. testimony of Gregorio was self-serving, thus an mere fact that he, being a plaintiff, was a witness
improper basis for the award interested in the outcome of the case. Now, it is true
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule that a party’s interest may to some extent affect his
45 HELD: credibility as a witness. To insist otherwise would be
1. a. NO (heirs of pedro should pay) the height of naiveté. Nonetheless, the Court cannot
FACTS: This case involves a land dispute between Ratio: A judicial admission conclusively binds the party subscribe to the view, implicit in petitioners’ argument,
Pedro Clemena and Irene Bien, both of them claiming making it. He cannot thereafter contradict it. The that a party’s testimony favorable to himself must be
that they acquired the property through purchase (its exception is found only in those rare instances when disregarded on account solely of his interest in the

44
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

case. Our justice system will not survive such a rule for (c) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities, or 1. WON police blotter of the burning of DYHB, the
obdurate cynicism on the part of a court is just as warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), certification issued by the Integrated National Police of
odious to the administration of justice as utter civil war. Bacolod City and the fire investigation report prepared
gullibility. (d) Mutiny, riot, military or popular rising, by SFO III Rochas is deemed sufficient (Entry in Official
-National Dev’t Company v. WCC: interest alone is not a insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or usurped Records)
ground for disregarding a party’s testimony. power. 2. WON the testimony of Lt. Col. Torres is admissible
-obiter in other cases: interest of a witness does not The insurance companies denied the claims by 3. WON the letter of Magsilang, who claims to be a
ipso facto deprive his testimony of probative force or maintaining that the evidence showed that the fire was member of NPA-NIROC, being an admission of person
require it to be disregarded, and the trier of facts is caused by members of CPP/NPA. Hence, the civil case. which is not a party to the present action, is admissible
entitled to accept as much of the witness’ testimony as - RTC Makati: in favor of RADIO. PROVIDENT to pay (Admission & Confessions)
he finds credible and to reject the rest. P450,000.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2, 4. WON the excepted risk was not proven by DBP
1990 the date of the filing of the Complaint. DBP to 5. WON the reports of witnesses Lt. Col Torres and SFO
DISPOSITION: Petition denied. CA decision affirmed. pay P602,600.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2, II Rochar that the bystanders they interviewed claimed
1990. that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA is
- CA: affirmed the decision, with the modification that an exception to the hearsay rule as part of res gestae
DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE the applicable interest rate reduced to 6% per annum. (Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence)
COMPANIES V RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK,INC MFR denied.
G.R. No. 147039 - DBP assails: factual finding of both RTC and CA that
HELD
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; January 27, 2006 its evidence failed to support its allegation that the loss
1. NO
(owen) was caused by an excepted risk, (members of the
- The documentary evidence may be considered
CPP/NPA)
exceptions to the hearsay rule, being entries in official
RTC
NATURE records, nevertheless, none of these documents
+ testimony of witnesses Lt. Col. Torres and SPO3
Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 RoC seeking the categorically stated that the perpetrators were
Rochar, who were admittedly not present when the fire
review of the CA Decision affirming RTC Makati members of the CPP/NPA.
occurred, was limited to the fact that an investigation
Decision reducing interest rate to 6% per annum > police blotter: “a group of persons accompanied by
was conducted and in the course of the investigation
one (1) woman all believed to be CPP/NPA … more or
they were informed by bystanders that “heavily armed
less 20 persons suspected to be CPP/NPA,”
FACTS men entered the transmitter house, poured gasoline in
> certification from the Bacolod Police station: “…
- Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. (RADIO), who owns it and then lit it. After that, they went out shouting
some 20 or more armed men believed to be members
several broadcasting stations all over the country, filed “Mabuhay ang NPA”.
of the New People’s Army NPA,”
a civil case against DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance + persons whom they investigated and actually saw
> fire investigation report: “(I)t is therefore believed by
Companies (DBP) and Provident Insurance Corporation the burning of the station were not presented as
this Investigating Team that the cause of the fire is
(PROVIDENT) for recovery of insurance benefits. witnesses
intentional, and the armed men suspected to be
PROVIDENT covered RADIO’s transmitter equipment + documentary evidence, which includes a letter
members of the CPP/NPA were the ones responsible …”
and generating set for P13,550,000.00 under a Fire released by the NPA merely mentions some
- All these documents show that indeed, the
Insurance Policy, while DBP covered RADIO’s dissatisfaction with the activities of some people in the
“suspected” executor of the fire were believed to be
transmitter, furniture, fixture and other transmitter media in Bacolod, do not satisfactorily prove that the
members of the CPP/NPA. But suspicion alone is not
facilities for P5,883,650.00 under a Fire Insurance author of the burning were members of the NPA..
sufficient, preponderance of evidence being the
Policy. CA
quantum of proof.
- July 27, 1988 evening, RADIO’s station in Bacolod City + police blotter of the burning of DYHB
2. NO
was razed by fire causing damage in the amount of + certification of the Negros Occidental Integrated
- The only person who seems to be so sure that that the
P1,044,040.00. RADIO sought recovery under the two National Police, Bacolod City regarding the incident
CPP-NPA had a hand in the burning of DYHB was Lt. Col.
insurance policies but the claims were denied on the + letter of alleged NPA members Magsilang claiming
Torres. However, though his testimony is persuasive, it
ground that the cause of loss was an excepted risk responsibility for the burning of DYHB
cannot be admit as conclusive proof that the CPP-NPA
excluded under condition no. 6 (c) and (d) + fire investigation report dated July 29, 1988
was really involved in the incident considering that he
6. This insurance does not cover any loss or + testimonies of Lt. Col. Torres and SFO III Rochas
admitted that he did not personally see the armed men
damage occasioned by or through or in
even as he tried to pursue them. Note that when Lt.
consequence, directly or indirectly, of any of the
ISSUES Col. Torres was presented as witness, he was presented
following consequences, namely:
as an ordinary witness only and not an expert witness.
45
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

Hence, his opinion on the identity or membership of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on PEOPLE V REYES
armed men with the CPP-NPA is not admissible in which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends. G.R. No. L-1846-48
evidence. - Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, BENGZON; January 18, 1948
3. NO refers to those exclamations and statements made by (aida)
- Under Section 22, Rule 130 RoC. An admission is either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
competent only when the declarant, or someone immediately before, during, or after the commission of NATURE
identified in legal interest with him, is a party to the the crime, when the circumstances are such that the Appeal from judgment of CFI Pampanga
action. statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
4. YES utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion FACTS
- In insurance cases, where a risk is excepted by the and there was no opportunity for the declarant to - Vicente Gatchalian, Severino Austria, Pedro Reyes,
terms of a policy which insures against other perils or deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The rule Eusebio Perez, Gervasio Due and Marcelo Due were
hazards, loss from such a risk constitutes a defense in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not charged in two separate cases with the deaths of
which the insurer may urge, since it has not assumed testify and provided that the testimony of the witness Benjamin Nery and Alfredo Laguitan. In another case,
that risk, and from this it follows that an insurer seeking who heard the declarant complies with the following they were accused of causing physical injuries to
to defeat a claim because of an exception or limitation requisites: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be Francisco Orsino.
in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made - April 19, 1946, Good Friday in Cacutud, Arayat,
comes within the purview of the exception or limitation before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise Pampanga – While the “pabasa” was being performed,
set up. If a proof is made of a loss apparently within a a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the appellants, assisted by Marcelo Due, Gervasio Due
contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to the occurrence in question and its immediate attending and one Peping and carrying pistols, approached Nery,
prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is circumstances. Laguitan and Orsino who were members of the military
excepted or for which it is not liable, or from a cause - It is reasonable to assume that when these police.
which limits its liability. statements were noted down, the bystanders already - The three MPs were sitting on one corner, watching
- Consequently, it is sufficient for RADIO to prove the had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk to the proceedings. At gunpoint, the three MPs were
fact of damage or loss. Once RADIO makes out a one another and exchange information, not to mention driven to the road and when they were about ten
prima facie case in its favor, the duty or the burden of theories and speculations, as is the usual experience in meters away from where the “pabasa” was being done,
evidence shifts to DBP to controvert RADIO’S prima disquieting situations where hysteria is likely to take they were shot from behind. Nery and Laguitan were
facie case. In this case, since DBP alleged an excepted place. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether killed instantly while Orsino fractured a leg which took
risk, then the burden of evidence shifted to DBP to these utterances were the products of truth. That the 6 months to heal.
prove such exception. It is only when petitioner has utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote. At - The motive for the killing was the conflict between the
sufficiently proven that the damage or loss was caused best, the testimonies of SFO III Rochar and Lt. Col. MPs and the Huks, the attackers being Huk members.
by an excepted risk does the burden of evidence shift Torres that these statements were made may be - Six people testified for the prosecution, including
back to respondent who is then under a duty of considered as independently relevant statements Reyes.
producing evidence to show why such excepted risk gathered in the course of their investigation, and are - Eusebio Perez said he was attending the pabasa and
does not release petitioner from any liability admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact when he heard gunshots, he grabbed his wife and ran.
5. NO that they had been thus uttered. The next day he saw three of the assailants including
- A witness can testify only to those facts which he - Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with Maximo Austria and they said they were going into
knows of his personal knowledge, which means those its weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of evidence hiding because they had taken part in the shooting the
facts which are derived from his perception. A witness depends on its relevance and competence, while the night before. Perez did not mention Gatchalian.
may not testify as to what he merely learned from weight of evidence pertains to evidence already - Lt. Martinez testified that in the investigation
others either because he was told or read or heard the admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. conducted by Quintans, Gatchalian stated that each of
same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may - Even assuming that the declaration of the bystanders them approached an MP and fired at them and that he
not be received as proof of the truth of what he has that it was the members of the CPP/NPA who caused was sure they would die.
learned. The hearsay rule is based upon serious the fire may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow - Witnesses for the defense gave their own testimonies.
concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of that such declarations are sufficient proof. These - Segundo Guevara saw Gatchalian during the pabasa
hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not declarations should be calibrated vis-à-vis the other and when gunshots were heard, he saw Gatchalian run
given under oath or solemn affirmation and, more evidence on record. carrying his child and then the latter lay in a pile of
importantly, have not been subjected to cross- Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. palay. Gatchalian remained in Guevara’s house the
examination by opposing counsel to test the whole night. This was corroborated by a testimony by
perception, memory, veracity and articulateness of the Evaristo Paras.

46
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

- The fiscal filed a motion for the dismissal of the case - Appelant Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila
against Eusebio Perez for insufficiency of evidence. This SEPARATE OPINION is a foreign corporation duly registered and licensed to
was granted. He also asked that the accused Pedro do business in the Philippines, with its office and
Reyes be discharged so that the latter may be used as PERFECTO [dissent] principal place of business in the City of Manila. Richard
prosecution witness. This was also granted. - Appellants' guilt not having been proved beyond all T. Fitzsimmons was the president and one of the
- The CFI judge found the accused Maximino Austria reasonable doubt, they are entitled to acquittal. largest stockholders of said company when the Pacific
alias Severino Australia alias Big Boy and Vicente - The testimony of Eusebio Perez to the effect that on war broke out on December 8, 1941. He held 1,00
Gatchalian alias Magallanes guilty of the offenses set April 20, 1946, appellants told him that they wanted to shares of stock, 545 of which was not fully paid. He
forth in the different informations. They were hide because of their participation in the shooting the executed promissory notes in favor of the company
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnity for the previous night, is absolutely incredible. If appellants worth P245,250 (540 per share) for those shares. In
deaths of Nery and Laguitan. had wanted to hide, it is incomprehensible that they 1941 he already paid P64.5k.
- Reyes did become a state witness but he did not should start by admitting to Eusebio Perez that they - Fitzsimmons had an agreement with the company
confirm every statement he had previously made at the took part in the shooting affray and then confiding to that should he die without having paid in full, the
fiscal's investigation. He testified that before the crime him their intention to hide. company, at its option, may either reacquire the said
was committed, Gervacio had asked him to talk to the - The testimony of Pedro Reyes cannot be taken 545 shares of stock by returning to his estate the
MPs but he refused. Later on, he heard gunshots and seriously, not only because it comes from a polluted amount applied thereon, or issue in favor of his estate
when he ran to the ricefield, he saw and heard Gervacio source, but because it is inherently unbelievable that the corresponding number of the company's shares of
saying that the MP he shot would surely die and the authors of the shooting could have been so reckless stock equivalent to the amount paid thereon at P450 a
Gatchalian assuring him that the MO would indeed die. enough to make comments on the results of the share.
- Orsino narrated a similar incident but could not shooting in the field, near the scene, and at the hearing - On Jan 1942, the Japanese occupied Manila and seized
identify the assailants except Austria. Lts. Martinez and distance of Pedro Reyes. According to the latter, all assets of the company. Fitzsimmons died on 1944
Quintans declared under oath that Gatchalian admitted everybody, including the assailants, ran away afield; and special proceeding was instituted. Atlantic
to them during the investigation that he had shot one but it is unbelievable that the assailants should stop in resumed business in 1945.
of the MPs. Gatchalian even demonstrated how he shot their flight just to make comments and seemingly - Atlantic filed a claim on the estate worth P63,868.67
the victim whih was captured in a photograph. should to afford Pedro Reyes the opportunity to over- Fitzsimmons owed them. It also wanted to exercise its
- Lt. Quintans also testified that Austria had voluntarily hear their conversation. option to acquire the 545 shares by returning the
signed the confession. - The testimonies of Fidel Martinez and Segundino S. P64.5k Fitzsimmons paid. They requested a set-off.
- Gatchalian denies that he made a confession before Quintans as to the supposed oral admission of Vicente Lichauco, the administrator, denied any indebtedness.
Lt. Quintans. He denied that he had taken part in the Gatchalian and the written statement signed by He expressed conformity however to the refund of
killing and that he was merely threatened to be killed Severino Austria, are completely valueless because of P64.5k. He also interposed a counterclaim worth P90k
lest he reenact the crime as shown in the photograph. the uncontradicted testimonies of the two appellants to for salaries allegedly due.
He alleged that he was maltreated and even showed the effect that they were maltreated, tortured and - Santiago Inacay, chief of the accounting department
his supposed injuries in court. threatened to be killed. of the Atlantic testified that the officers had maintained
- Orsino testified that the shooting took place in front of personal accounts with the company. Fitzsimmons
ISSUE the place where the pabasa was being held in the maintained one. He testified that at the end of 1941,
WON the judgment appealed from should be reversed presence of many people. Not one of those many had the account shows that Fitzsimmons owed 63k to the
witnessed the shooting was called by the prosecution company. He said that he specifically knew the balance
HELD to testify as to who did the shooting and how it took of the said account because it would be very
NO place, with the single exception of Orsino. “shameful” on his part if the officers asked him for their
Reasoning balance and he didn’t know.
- The picture of the reenactment of the crime is - Modesto Flores, the assistant accountant, also
convincing enough to show the guilty participation of testified that Fitzsimmons had a balance of 63k. He
the appellants. LICHAUCO V ATLANTIC knew this because as accountant, he made the entries
- Their defense of alibi is weak and untenable. The GR NO.L-27434 in the books of the company. He also signed receipts
Solicitor General's brief substantially proves conspiracy OZAETA; August 23, 1949 whenever Fitzsimmons would withdraw funds.
between them and their other co-accused who are still (monch) - Mr. Henry J. Belden and Mr. Samuel Garmezy, vice-
at large. president-treasurer and president were also called to
FACTS testify but the TC refused to admit them because they
Disposition Judgment affirmed were not only large stockholders and members of the

47
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

board of directors but also vice-president-treasurer and who are merely employed by such parties or assignors - A possible explanation such conflict between the
president, respectively, of the claimant company. of parties company and Fitzsimmons can be seen in Inacay’s
However, if allowed to testify, they said that they would - Merriman vs. Wickersman: An examination of the testimony. The latter said that at the end of the year,
also say that they had personal knowledge that authorities from other states will disclose that their the personal accounts would be on the credit side since
Fitzsimmons owed the company 63k. decisions rest upon the wordings of their statutes, but the dividend, bonuses and fees would be credited. On
- The administrator as evidence showed Exhibit 1, that generally, where interest in the litigation or its the year 1941, such did not happen because of the war.
which contains the gross value of assets of the conjugal outcome has ceased to disqualify, officers and directors Fitzsimmons could have believed that such amount was
partnership of Fitzsimmons and Miguela Malayto. He of corporations are not considered to be parties within credited, therefore, he did not include any obligations
testified that he was the attorney in the divorce case the meaning of the law. he had to the company in Exhibit 1. However, since the
(1943) between them and that Fitzsimmons prepared - The trial court erred in not admitting the testimony of counsels did not pursue this point, the court cannot rule
Exhibit 1 for the division of assets of the partnership. In Messrs. Belden and Garmezy. It is not necessary, on this point. Leaving this foregoing reflection, the
said exhibit, there is no indication of any debt to the however, to remand the case because it would be court held that since the testimonies are based only on
company merely corroborative, if at all, and in any event what memory, and given that human memory, especially
said witnesses would have testified, if permitted, with regard to figures after more than 5 years, is
ISSUE/S already appears in the record as hereinabove set forth, unreliable, they cannot overturn the TC decision.
1. WON the officers of a corporation which is a party to and we can consider it together with the testimony of
an action against an executor or administrator of a the chief accountant and the assistant accountant who, 3. No
deceased person are disqualified from testifying as to according to the appellant itself, were "the only ones in ReasoningThere was no resolution either of the
any matter of fact occurring before the death of such the best of position to testify on the status of the stockholders of the board of directors of the company
deceased person under Rule 123, section 26(c), of the personal account" of the deceased Fitzsimmons authorizing the payment of the salaries of the president
Rules of Court (now Rule 130.23) or any other officer or employee of the corporation for
2. WON Exhibit 1 is admissible because it is self-serving 2. NO the period of the war when the corporation was forced
2. WON the deceased Richard T. Fitzsimmons was Reasoning A self-serving declaration is a statement completely to suspend its business operations and
entitled to his salary as president of the Atlantic, Gulf & favorable to the interest of the declarant. It is not when its officers were interned or virtually held
Pacific Company of Manila from January, 1942, to June admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted. prisoners by the enemy
27, 1944, when he died in the Santo Tomas internment On the other hand, a declaration against the interest of
camp the person making it is admissible in evidence, PEOPLE VS YATCO
notwithstanding its hearsay character, if the declaration (giulia)
HELD is relevant and the declarant has died, become insane, UNITED STATES vs BAY
1. NO or for some other reason is not available as a witness. CARSON; Aug 14, 1914
Ratio Rule 123 disqualifies only parties or assignors of - Insofar, at least, as the appellant was concerned, (athe)
parties. The officers and/or stockholders of a there was no probable motive on the part of
corporation are not disqualified from testifying, for or Fitzsimmons to falsify his inventory Exhibit 1 by not FACTS
against the corporation which is a party to an action including therein appellant's present claim of P63,000 Servando Bay was charged of rape of Florentina
upon a claim or demand against the estate of a among his obligations or liabilities to be deducted from Alcones. The accused met Alcones walking along the
deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring the assets of the conjugal partnership between him and beach, caught hold her, picked her up, and carried her
before the death of such deceased person his divorced wife. He did not know then that he would to the edge of some thickets, where he threw her on
Reasoning die within one year and that the corporation of which the ground and attempted to have carnal intercourse
- This provision was taken from section 383, paragraph he was the president and one of the largest with her. However, a party who were passing near the
7, of our former Code of Civil Procedure, which in turn stockholders would present the claim in question place where the crime was committed heard her cries.
was derived from section 1880 of the Code of Civil against his estate. Neither did he know that the books One of the parties stepped ashore, and seeing the
Procedure of California. and records of that corporation would be destroyed or accused get up from the place where the woman claims
- City Savings Bank vs. Enos: To hold that the statute lost. Yet, although he listed in said inventory his the crime was committed, asked "What's this?” The
disqualifies all persons from testifying who are officers obligations in favor of the Peoples Bank and Trust accused made no explanation of his conduct or his
or stockholders of a corporation would be equivalent to Company and the Philippine Bank of Commerce presence there, and left the place forthwith.
materially amending the statute by judicial aggregating more than P30,000, he did not mention at Immediately thereafter the woman, accompanied by
interpretation. Plainly the law disqualifies only "parties all any obligation in favor of the corporation of which he some of the party from the boat, went to the
or assignors of parties," and does not apply to persons was the president and one of the largest stockholders. councilman of the barrio and made complaint. The
accused, having been brought before the councilman

48
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

and asked had he committed the crime of which he was - Direct appeal from the decision of the CFI of Davao
charged, admitted that he had. Thereafter the accused City, finding petitioner Peter Paul Aballe guilty of ISSUES
was sent to the justice of the peace, who held him for homicide. 1. WON the trial court erred in giving full weight to
trial. FACTS Aballe’s extrajudicial confession taken during custodial
The accused was convicted. - At around 7PM of Nov.7, 1980 in Saypon, Toril, investigation and in imposing a penalty which was not
Davao City, Quirino Banguis, a 42-year old driver, in accordance with law.
ISSUE attended a birthday party at the residence of his 2. WON the guilt of the accused has been established
WON finding the accused guilty has basis neighbor Aguilles Mora. He brought along his wife and beyond reasonable doubt
other children, leaving his 12-year-old daughter Jennie
HELD alone in their house. Upon their return at around 8:30 HELD
YES. There can be no possible doubt that he was that same night, Quirino found Jennie in the sala, lying 1. YES
present when the party on board the boat was prostrate, bathed in her own blood with multiple - Aballe's extrajudicial admission should have been
attracted to the place where the victim raised her wounds on different parts of her body. There were no disregarded by the lower court for having been
outcry charging him with the assault, and that he was eyewitnesses to the bizarre killing. obtained in violation of Aballe's constitutional rights.
present later on when the victim presented her - The postmortem report disclosed that Jennie Throughout the custodial interrogation, the
complaint to the councilman of the barrio. Under such sustained a total of 32 stab wounds. Cause of death accused's parents and relatives were almost always
circumstances, we are convinced that an innocent man was attributed to hemorrhage secondary to multiple around but at no stage of the entire proceedings was it
would instantly and indignantly repudiate such a stab wounds. shown that the youthful offender was ever represented
charge, and attempt there and then to establish his - At daybreak of the following day, Nov. 8, acting on by counsel. Since the execution of the extrajudicial
innocence, explaining how he came to be there present information furnished by the victim's father, a police statement was admittedly made in the absence of
with the woman, and the conditions under which she team headed by Sgt Marante sought the accused for counsel, whether de oficio or de parte, and the waiver
had made the false charge; yet there is not the questioning. They found him just as he was coming out of counsel was not made with the assistance of counsel
slightest indication in the evidence that there was on of the communal bathroom in Saypon and wearing as mandated by the provisions of Section 20, Article IV
the part of the accused any such indignant denials and what appeared to be a bloodstained T-shirt. Upon of the 1973 Constitution, said confession should have
protests as would be expected from an innocent man seeing Sgt. Marante, the accused without anyone been discarded by the lower court.
suddenly confronted with such a charge under such asking him, orally admitted that he killed Jennie - Equally inadmissible is the kitchen knife recovered
circumstances. Indeed, his conduct at that time was, to Banguis. Sgt. Marante subsequently brought him to the from Aballe after his capture and after the police had
the minds of the Court, wholly at variance with that Toril police station for interrogation. started to question him. Together with the extrajudicial
which might fairly be expected from him, granting the - While under custodial investigation, Aballe, 17 years confession, the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a
truth of his testimony and that of the other witnesses old, a school dropout (he finished second year high constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must
for the defense. school) and next door neighbor of the victim, brought consequently be disallowed. The bloodstained T-shirt,
the police to his house and pointed to them the pot at however, is admissible, being in the nature of an
DISPOSITION the "bangera" where he had concealed the death evidence in plain view which an arresting officer may
Judgment affirmed. weapon which was a 4-inch kitchen knife. Also taken take and introduce in evidence.
from Aballe was the bloodstained red and white striped - The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction is that "an
T-shirt which he claimed he wore during the officer making an arrest may take from the person
commission of the crime. Aballe also made an arrested any money or property found upon his person
extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt in killing which was used in the commission of the crime or was
Jennie while under the influence of liquor and the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the
marijuana. ( Pls. see original copy re sworn affidavit) prisoner with the means of committing violence or
Thereafter, an information was filed against Aballe, escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the trial
charging him with homicide penalized under Article 249 of the cause. . ."
ABALLE v PEOPLE of the RPC. At his arraignment on Apr. 13, 1981, he 2. YES
FERNAN; March 15, 1990 pleaded not guilty. He also disavowed his extrajudicial - It is well to note that even before the taking of the
G.R. No. 64086 confession on the ground that it was obtained through extrajudicial confession, the accused, upon being
(jojo) coercion and in the absence of counsel. picked up in the morning of Nov. 8, 1980 as he was
Notwithstanding the repudiation of his earlier coming out of the communal bathroom and wearing a
NATURE confession, Aballe was convicted of the crime of T-shirt covered with bloodstains which he tried to cover
homicide. with his hands, suddenly broke down and knelt before

49
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

Sgt. Marante and confessed that he killed Jennie -dawn of Feb 3, Josue Molas, with blood-stained clothes, Molas did not object to any of the contents of his
Banguis. The testimony of Sgt. Marante on Aballe's oral surrendered to Patrolman Geronimo Vallega, together affidavit as translated. He signed the document
confession is competent evidence to positively link the with the “hunting knife I used in killing the mother, the willingly.
accused to the aforesaid killing. ( Pls see orig copy re daughter and the boy”. Patrolman Vallega then lodged -3 separate information for murder were filed against
testimony) Molas in jail. Molas was transferred to Valencia Police Molas, to which he pleaded not guilty.
- The declaration of an accused expressly Station later. -for the defense, only Molas was presented. In essence,
acknowledging his guilt of the offenses charged may be -next morning, after being informed of his he testified that at about 6 pm on Feb 2, he saw his
given in evidence against him. The rule is that any Constitutional rights, refused to give any statement to fiancé lifeless beside the dried mud pool 3 fathoms
person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the police. Eventually, Molas freely and voluntarily away from the store/house. He hugged Dulcesima but
the confession, is competent to testify as to the related the “whole story”, as taken down by Patrolman she was dead so he ran to the store. There, he saw
substance of what he heard if he heard and understood Fetalvero. The following are contained in Molas’ sworn Soledad wounded in the neck and bathed with blood.
all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated statement: In our arrival to their house at sitio Inas, He also saw Abelardo under a table with a hunting knife
verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its Barangay Dobdob, from Kabangogan, * this Soledad in his back which he pulled from Abelardo. He shouted
substance. Resonable lighted a gas lamp in their store and said, for help then suddenly a voice from behind the store
- Compliance with the constitutional procedures on "maayo kay naabot na ta walay makaboot nako ug said “Don’t shout, Bay, if you don’t want to die!” 3
custodial investigation is not applicable to a patyon nako ang akong anak." [It's good that you have unidentified men started chasing him afterwards.
spontaneous statement, not elicited through arrived, no one can stop me if I kill my own daughter] During the said flight he stumbled, causing the injury in
questioning, but given in an ordinary manner, whereby at the same time went near Dulcesima, her daughter his hands. He informed his mother regarding what
the accused orally admitted having slain the victim. and grabbed her hair and boxed her to the different happened, and with his blood-stained clothes, he
- Inappropriateness of penalty discussed parts of her body. Because of faith and sympathy, I proceeded to the police station. While he was being
stopped Solidad by holding her hands to prevent her investigated, Patrolman Vallaga arrived and informed
boxing Dulcesima, but on my intervention, Soledad Patrolman Renzal that Abelardo tagged him as the
PEOPLE V. MOLAS boxed me hitting my head and arms. Due to blocks I killer. He also alleged, though unsubstantiated, that
G.R. Nos. 97437-39 made she was tired and again went back to Dulcesima Patrolman Quitoy manhandled him. He denied knowing
GRIÑO-AQUINO, February 5, 1993 and again boxed her to the different parts of her body. the contents of the affidavit because it was written in
(cha) Because I was hurt on the part of Dulcisima, my wife-to- English and was not translated to him.
be and no other means to prevent Solidad, I was able to -RTC: GUILTY
NATURE grab the weapon on my waist and stabbed Solidad
Appeal hitting her first on the breast, then on the back after ISSUES
which I saw Abelardo, Dulcisima's younger brother at 1. WON the court erred in giving credence to Abelardo’s
FACTS my back holding and boxing my buttock. I stabbed him dying declaration
-Josue Molas (accused-appellant) and Dulcesima on the breast and followed again at the back causing 2. WON his extrajudicial admission was validly admitted
Resonable (Dulcesima, victim) were sweethearts and him to fall down on the ground, leaving therein the by the court
were engaged to be married. Dulcesima was the weapon I used causing incised wound on my right little
daughter of Bernardo and Soledad Resonable, and the finger and ran away but Dulcisima stopped me by HELD
sister of Nicolas and Abelardo Resonable holding my left hand and said, "puslang nabuhat sa 1. NO. Correct in giving credence to it as a dying
-on Feb 2, 1983, at about 6:00 pm after farm work, akong ginikanan, patya lamang ko ug layhan ka mag declaration.
Bernardo arrived at their house and found 8-y.o. onong ta sa kamatayon." [How could you do this to my Ratio. To be admissible, a dying declaration must: (1)
Abelardo at the doorway of their house bathed in his parent, kill me also so we'll all die together]. Hearing concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of
own blood. Bernardo carried Abelardo into their house. such words, I responded, "papatay ka diay kanako," the declarant's death; (b) that at the time it was made,
Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the [You'll kill me after all?] I went back where Abelardo the declarant was under a consciousness of impending
person who not only inflicted his injuries but also was and pulled the penetrated weapon and stabbed death; (c) that he was a competent witness; and (d)
stabbed Dulcesima and Soledad. Bernardo then looked Dulcisima who at that time was following me hitting her that his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal
for Dulcesima, who he found dead in a dried carabao breast and caused her life to end. When I saw Solidad case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the
mud pool 3-arms length from the house, and Soledad, her mother walking towards the seat of their store and declarant is the victim (Sec. 31, Rule 130, Rules of
who he found near the bench by the door of the house. sat down, I followed her and slashed her neck and Court; People vs. Saliling, 69 SCRA 427).
Bernardo ran to the barangay captain and sought help stabbed her stomach and immediately ran home.” The Reasoning. Abelardo's statement that it was Josue
from authorities. Abelardo was brought to the Provincial said confession was signed before Judge Tayrosa of the Molas who inflicted his injuries and also stabbed his
hospital but died the next day. MTC fo Valencia after it was translated to Cebuano. mother and sister was given to his father, while he

50
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

(Abelardo) lay at death's door, bleeding from stab - Maqueda was found guilty beyond reasonable accused Salvamante, he would be freed and he could
wounds in his colon and spinal cord, as a result of doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and also become a state witness: He told them that he
which he expired a few hours later. It was indubitably a serious physical Injuries and was sentenced to suffer could attest to the fact that he accompanied accused
dying declaration. All of the circumstances required the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the Salvamante in selling the cassette recorder.
were present when Abelardo made his dying victim, Teresita M, Barker in the amount of P50T for the * The prosecution rebutted the testimony of Hector
declaration. death of William Horace Barker. Maqueda by presenting Fredesminda Castience and
- After a substantial period of time, Maqueda was SP03 Armando Molleno. Castrence, the owner of the
2. YES finally arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon and was polvoron factory where Maqueda worked, testified that
Ratio. While it is true that the appellant's extrajudicial brought by Maj. Anagaran who then brought Maqueda she started her business only on 30 August 1991 and
confession was made without the advice and assistance to the Benguet Provincial Jail. Before Maj. Anagaran's thus it was impossible for her to have hired Maqueda
of counsel, hence, inadmissible as evidence, it could be arrival at Guinyangan, Maqueda had been taken to the. on 5 July 1991. SP03 Molleno declared that he informed
treated as a verbal admission of the accused headquarters of the 235th PNP Mobile Force Company Maqueda of his constitutional rights before Maqueda
established through the testimonies of the persons who at Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon. Its commanding officer, was investigated and that Maqueda voluntarily and
heard it or who conducted the investigation of the Maj. Virgilio F. Rendon, directed SP03 Armando Molleno freely gave his Sinumpaang Salaysay.
accused (People vs. Carido, 167 SCRA 462; People vs. to get Maqueda's statement. He did so and according RTC Decision
Feliciano, 58 SCRA 383; People vs. Fontanosa, 20 SCRA to him, he informed Maqueda of his rights under the - Although the trial court had doubts on the
249). Constitution. Maqueda thereafter signed a Sinumpaang identification of Maqueda by prosecution witnesses
Reasoning. The Valencia Police Station investigator, Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the Teresita Mendoza Barker, Norie Dacara, and Julieta
Patrolman Paquito Fetalvero, testifying before the trial crime at the Barker house on 27 August 1991. Villanueva and thus disregarded their testimonies on
court on October 16, 1984, quoted the admissions of - On 9 April 1992, while he was under detention, this matter, it decreed a conviction "based on the
the accused. The trial court, which observed his Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein confession and the proof of corpus delicti" as
deportment on the witness stand, found him credible. that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State well as on circumstantial evidence. One of such
- the trial court did not rely solely on the extrajudicial witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he circumstances is that His Motion to Grant Bail contains
confession of the accused. Even if that confession were is the least guilty among the accused in this case." this statement that he is willing and volunteering to be
disregard, there was more that enough evidence to Prosecutor Zarate then had a talk with Maqueda State witness. This in effect, supports his extrajudicial
support his conviction. His act of giving himself up to regarding such statement and asked him if he was in confession taken at the police station. This is the
the police of Pamplona with the murder weapon, his the company of Salvamante on 27 August 1991 in Sinumpaang Salaysay of Maqueda taken by SP02
blood-stained clothing at the time of the surrender only entering the house of the Barkers. After he received an Molleno immediately after Maqueda was arrested.
hours after the killings, Abelardo's dying declaration, affirmative answer, Prosecutor Zarate told Maqueda - Under Section 3 of Rule 133, an extrajudicial
and the testimonies of the policemen in the police that he would oppose the motion for bail since he, confession made by the accused is not sufficient for
stations in Pamplona and Valencia to whom he Maqueda, was the only accused on trial. conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
admitted his guilt constitute an unbroken chain proving - In the meantime, Ray Dean Salvosa arrived at the delicti. The trial court admitted the Sinumpaang
beyond reasonable doubt that it was he who murdered Office of Prosecutor Zarate and obtained permission Salaysay of accused Maqueda although it was taken
Abelardo, Dulcesima and Soledad Resonable. from the latter to talk to Maqueda. Maqueda narrated without the assistance of counsel because it was of the
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment to Salvosa this version of the story as well. opinion that since an information had already benefited
convicting Josue Molas for the murders of Dulcesima Accused’s Version in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a
Resonable, Soledad Resonable and Abelardo Resonable - Accused Hector Maqueda put up the defense of denial warrant of arrest issued by the court, the Sinumpaang
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion and alibi. He stated that he was at the polvoron factory Salaysay was not, therefore, taken during custodial
perpetua for each of said murders is AFFIRMED, with owned by Minda Castrense located at Sukat, investigation. The trial court then held that the
modification of the death indemnity which is hereby Muntinlupa. He was employed as a caretaker. He and admissibility of the Sinumpaang Salaysay should not be
increased to P50,000.00 for each case. SO ORDERED. his 8 co-employees all sleep inside the factory. He tested under Sec 12(1), Article III of the Constitution,
accompanied an officemate, Rosely, home to but on the voluntariness of its execution. Since
PEOPLE V MAQUEDA Guinyangan, Quezon. And then he was already arrested voluntariness is presumed, Maqueda had the burden of
G.R. No. 112983 by members of the CAGFU. proving otherwise, which he failed to do.
DAVIDE, JR.; March 22, 1995 - He was then brought to the Guinyangan municipal jail, - As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor
(rach) then to the Tuba Police Station, Tuba, Benguet. There Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court admitted
he was told to cooperate with the police in arresting their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their
FACTS Salvamante so he would not stay long in the Province conversation but not to prove the truth of the
of Benguet. He was also told that if he would point to

51
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

admission because such testimony was objected to as substance of what he heard if he heard and understood not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or
hearsay. it. The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which
confession; it suffices if he gives its substance. By he is charged.
ISSUE analogy, that rule applies to oral extrajudicial - Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission
1. WON Maqueda’s Sinumpaang Salaysay is admissible admissions. as follows:
2. WON the extrajudicial admissions are admissible Reasoning The extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms,
2. WON Maqueda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa stand on a by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime
different footing. These are not governed by the charged, while an admission is a statement by the
HELD exclusionary rules under the Bill of Rights. Maqueda accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the
1. NO voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate issue and tending, in connection with proof of other
Ratio Morales vs. Enrile: At the time a person is not in the course of an investigation, but in connection facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, an admission is
arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness; something less than a confession, and is but an
inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be and as to the other admission, it was given to a private acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in
shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be person. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarily itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which
informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent limitations on government, declaring the rights that tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
and to counsel, and that any statement he might make exist without governmental grant, that may not be Reasoning The accused's arguments which stress the
could be used against him. The person arrested shall taken away by government and that government has incredibility of the testimonies of Mrs. Barker and the
have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a the duty to protect; or restriction on the power of househelps identifying Maqueda are misdirected
relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient government found "not in the particular specific types because the trial court had ruled that they were not
mean by telephone if possible or by letter or of action prohibited, but in the general principle that able to positively identify Magueda. The trial court
messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting keeps alive in the public mind the doctrine that based his conviction on his extrajudicial
officer to see to it that this is accomplished. Any governmental power is not unlimited.” confession and the proof of corpus delicti, as well
statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein - To be added to Maqueda's extrajudicial admission as on circumstantial evidence which he did not
laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole is his Urgent Motion for Bail wherein he explicitly elaborate upon on his appeal.
or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. .stated that "he is willing and volunteering to be a state - The following circumstances were duly proved in this
- The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Maqueda taken by SP02 witness." case:
Molleno after the former's arrest was taken in (1) He and a companion were seen a kilometer away
palpable violation of his rights under Section 3. YES from the Barker house an hour after the crime in
12(1), Article III of the Constitution. As disclosed Ratio In the light of his admissions (to Prosecutor question was committed there;
by a reading thereof, Maqueda was not even told of Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa) and his willingness to be (2) Rene Salvamante, who is still at large, was
any of his constitutional rights under the said a state witness, Maqueda's participation in the positively identified by Mrs. Barker, Norie Dacara, and
section. The statement was also taken in the absence commission of the crime charged was established Julieta Villanueva as one of two persons who committed
of counsel. Such uncounselled Sinumpaang Salaysay is beyond moral certainty. His defense of alibi was futile the crime;
wholly inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 3, Section because by his own admission he was not only at the (3) He and co-accused Rene Salvamante are friends;
12, Article III of the Constitution. scene of the crime at the time of its commission, he (4) He and Rene Salvamante were together in
- The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to also admitted his participation. Even if we disregard his Guinyangan, Quezon, and both left the place sometime
counsel and to be informed thereof under Section extrajudicial admissions to Prosecutor Zarate and in September 1991;
12(1), Article III of the Constitution are not confined to Salvosa, his guilt was, as correctly ruled by the trial (5) He was arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon, on 4 March
that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or court, established beyond doubt by circumstantial 1992; and
information but are available at that stage when a evidence. (6) He freely and voluntarily offered to be a state
person is "under investigation for the commission of an EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION v EXTRAJUDICIAL witness stating that "he is the least guilty.
offense." ADMISSION Disposition Appeal is DISMISSED.
- A perusal of the Sinumpaang Salaysay shows that is
2. YES only an extrajudicial admission. There is a distinction
Ratio Aballe vs; People: The declaration of an accused between a confession and an admission as clearly
expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may shown in Sec. 26 and 33, Rule 130 of the ROC:
be given in evidence against him and any person, - In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of
otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who heard guilt. The term admission is usually applied in criminal
the confession, is competent to testify as to the cases to statements of fact by the accused which do PEOPLE V DOMANTAY

52
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

G.R. No. 130612 -In addition to several other witnesses, the No to 1, yes to 2.
MENDOZA; May 11, 1999 prosecution, during the trial, presented SPO1 Art. III, Section 12 of the Constitution in part provides:
(apple) Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel who testified (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
that, on separate occasions, accused-appellant of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
had confessed to the brutal killing of Jennifer right to remain silent and to have competent and
NATURE Domantay. independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
Appeal from a decision of the RTC -SPO1 Espinoza testified that he investigated accused- person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
appellant after the latter had been brought to the be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
FACTS Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17, except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
-On the afternoon of October 17, 1996, at around 4 1996. Before he commenced his questioning, he xxx xxx xxx
o'clock, the body of six-year old Jennifer Domantay was apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional right to (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig, remain silent and to have competent and independent this section or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The child's body bore several counsel, in English, which was later translated into evidence.
stab wounds. Pangasinense. -This provision applies to the stage of custodial
-The medical examination conducted by Dr. Macaranas, -According to SPO1 Espinoza, accused-appellant agreed investigation, that is, "when the investigation is no
the rural health physician of Malasiqui, showed that to answer the questions of the investigator even in the longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
Jennifer died of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic absence of counsel and admitted killing the victim. starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect."
shock secondary to 38 stab wounds at the back. Dr. Accused-appellant also disclosed the location of the R.A. No. 7438 has extended the constitutional
Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of bayonet he used in killing the victim. guarantee to situations in which an individual has not
inflammation of the outer and inner labia and the -On cross-examination, Espinoza admitted that at no been formally arrested but has merely been "invited"
vaginal walls of the victim's genitalia, although the time during the course of his questioning was accused- for questioning.
vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with appellant assisted by counsel. Neither was accused- -Decisions of this Court hold that for an extrajudicial
minimal resistance. appellant's confession reduced in writing. confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the
-The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to -Espinoza's testimony was admitted by the trial court following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it
accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay, a cousin of over the objection of the defense. must be made with the assistance of competent and
the victim's grandfather, as the lone suspect. -Celso Manuel, for his part, testified that he is a radio independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it
-At around 6:30 in the evening of that day, police reporter of station DWPR, an AM station based in must be in writing.
officers of the Malasiqui PNP picked up accused- Dagupan City. On October 23, 1996, Manuel went to -In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was
appellant at the Malasiqui public market and took him Malasiqui to interview accused-appellant who was then brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of
to the police station where accused-appellant, upon detained in the municipal jail. October 17, 1996, he was already a suspect, in fact the
questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza, confessed to -According to Manuel, he presented himself as a media only one, in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay.
killing Jennifer Domantay. He likewise disclosed that he practitioner with the tape recorder in his hand. When -He was, therefore, already under custodial
had given the fatal weapon used, a bayonet, to Elsa asked if he committed the crime, the accused investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III,
and Jorge Casingal, his aunt and uncle respectively. The answered "yes," and when asked why, the accused said Section 12(1) of the Constitution applied to him.
next day, SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took that it was about the boundary dispute, and he used -Although the accused waived the assistance of
accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the that little girl in his revenge. counsel, the waiver was neither put in writing nor made
bayonet from a tricycle belonging to the Casingal -As in the case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza, the in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the waiver
spouses. defense objected to the admission of Manuel's is invalid and his confession is inadmissible.
-On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr. testimony, but the lower court allowed it. -SPO1 Espinoza's testimony on the alleged confession
Macaranas, SPO4 Juan Carpizo, the PNP chief -Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the
investigator at Malasiqui, filed a criminal complaint for -The trial court found accused-appellant guilty as trial court. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence,
murder against accused-appellant before the MTC charged, hence, this appeal being, as it were, the "fruit of the poisonous tree."
-On October 25, 1996, Dr. Bandonill, medico-legal -The accused-appellant's confession to the radio
expert of the NBI, performed an autopsy on the body of ISSUE reporter, Celso Manuel, is admissible.
Jennifer. The result of his examination of the victim's WON the extrajudicial admissions made by the accused -In People v Andan, this Court said: Confessions to the
genitalia indicated that the child's hymen had been to: 1. SPO1 Espinoza and 2. Celso Manuel are newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of
completely lacerated on the right side. Based on this admissible in evidence Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not
finding, SPO4 Carpizo amended the criminal complaint concern itself with the relation between a private
against accused-appellant to rape with homicide. HELD individual and another individual. It governs the

53
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

relationship between the individual and the State. The that the Maribel and Renjie were nowhere in sight, and
prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the that the security guard Mantung was also not there. He ISSUE
State and its agents. also observed that the aircon and the lights inside and WON Mantung's admission during the press con can be
-Accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession is outside the store were on. He peeped inside and saw used to support his conviction.
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, namely, the nothing unsual, but smelled a foul odor from the office.
fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. When Myrna got to the store with the duplicate, RULING
-In addition, the circumstantial evidence furnished by Mary Ann opened the store through the back door. YES.
the other prosecution witnesses dovetails in material They first saw the safe room of the pawnshop in Mantung's admission during the press
points with his confession. He was seen walking toward disarray and the cash drawer was empty. On the messy conference that he killed the victims because the
the bamboo grove, followed by the victim. Later, he counter, there was a letter which appears to have been latter made him eat pork is competent evidence that
was seen standing near the bamboo grove where the written by Mantung addressed to her. Mantung wrote in lends support to his conviction. Although the
child's body was found. Filipino that he killed Maribel and Renjie because they clippings of the news articles reporting Mantung's
-Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him confession are indeed hearsay evidence as the writers
Sec 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for from eating. He likewise admitted taking the cash and of the same were not presented to affirm the veracity
conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an jewelry inside the vault, claiming that he needed of the reports, the prosecution nevertheless presented
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, money. Ricardo who was at the press conference, as rebuttal
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The bodies of Maribel and Renjie were found in the witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed
-However, the court found that the fact that accused- vault, each with a bullet to the head. The jewelries kept responsibility for the killings. Since Ricardo's testimony
appellant also committed rape was not established in the safe were gone. The total cash taken was P62k was based on his own personal knowledge about the
beyond reasonable doubt. and the jewelries were worth P5.3M. proceedings during the press conference, his
The police looked for Mantung in his rented room in affirmation of Mantung's incriminating statements is
Disposition Paranaque. Not finding him there, they went to admissible as evidence against the latter. Worth
Judgment rendered finding accused-appellant guilty of Novaliches on a tip. They finally caught him in Sultan reiterating is the rule that the declaration of an accused
homicide Kudarat, Cotabato. When they arrested him, some expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may
jewelry from the store were recovered from him. be given in evidence against him and any person,
He was brought back to Paranaque, where Mayor otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard
PEOPLE v. MANTUNG Joey Marquez held a press con. At the said conference, the confession, is competent to testify as to the
GR 130372; July 20, 1990; ROMERO when Mayor Marquez asked Mantung if he was the one substance of what he heard.
(Ina) who killed the two pawnshop employees, he answered The SC upheld the trial court's rejection of the
in the affirmative and said that he killed them objection of defense to admit Mantung's extrajudicial
FACTS because the victims had induced him to eat pork. statements as evidence. The Constitutional procedures
One Monday morning, on the way to work, Mary News reports about Mantung's admission to the killings on custodial investigation do not apply to a
Ann, the manager of Cebuana Lhuiller Pawnshop in appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Manila spontaneous statement, not elicited through
Maywood, BF Paranaque, received information that 2 Bulletin the day following the press conference. questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
employees, Maribel and Renjie did not go home the Clippings of these reports and pictures of the press manner whereby appellant orally admitted having
previous Saturday. She tried to contact Maribel, who conference were presented as evidence by the committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the
was the one who had the keys to the store, but couldn't prosecution during trial. compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or
reach her. She sent another employee, Myrna, to go get confessions. The rights under Section 12 are
duplicate keys from Magallanes. When she got to the Mantung was charged with robbery with homicide. guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by
store, she found Maribel's mom and Renjie's husband He was convicted and sentenced to death. the state as would lead the accused to admit
waiting outside. When Mary Ann saw that only 2 of the something false, not to prevent him from freely and
4 locks on the door were actually locked and that the Mantung's defense voluntarily telling the truth.
aircon was still running, she got suspicious and called Three armed men robbed the bank, killed the Never was it raised during the trial that Mantung's
the police. ladies with his gun, and brought him with them. He was admission during the press conference was coerced or
Meanwhile, another manager, Ricardo, got able to escape when they all stepped out of the made under duress. As the records show, accused-
information at 930am that the store wasn't open yet, getaway car to smoke some cigarettes near the pier. appellant voluntarily made the statements in response
when it should've been opened at 830am. He got Seeing his opportunity, he boarded the ship bound for to Mayor Marquez' question as to whether he killed the
suspicious and proceeded to the store, where he found Cebu. From there, he went home to Cotabato. (Obvious pawnshop employees. Mantung answered in the
Mary Ann waiting outside with the police. He noticed bang hindi pinaniwalaan ng court?!)* affirmative and even proceeded to explain that he

54
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

killed the victims because they made him eat pork. Juan (hereinafter 'Francisco'), the victim in the case at fired the fatal shots that caused the victim's death, may
These circumstances hardly indicate that Mantung felt bar. Caridad testified that Francisco was the Barangay be used as evidence against him. It underscored the
compelled to own up to the crime. Besides, he could Captain of Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, until he admission made by the defense as to the authorship,
have chosen to remain silent or to do deny altogether was shot and killed by accused Ladiana, who happens the authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution
any participation in the robbery and killings but he did to be also a distant relative of the decedent. of the Counter-Affidavit.
not; thus, accused-appellant sealed his own fate. As "Caridad recounted that she was in her house when an -Hence, this Petition.
held in People vs. Montiero, a confession constitutes unidentified woman came and told her that her RELEVANT ISSUE: (1) WON the Counter-Affidavit
evidence of high order since it is supported by husband was killed by accused Ladiana. When she Ladiana executed during the PI of this case is
the strong presumption that no person of normal reached the scene, many people were milling around, admissible proof showing his complicity in the crime
mind would deliberately and knowingly confess and Caridad saw the lifeless body of Francisco lying in RULING:
to a crime unless prompted by truth and his the middle of the road and being examined by [SPO2] Admissibility of Counter-Affidavit
conscience. Percival A. Gabinete. -It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities
Rule 133.3 of the RoC prescribes that an "Caridad maintained that she was aware that her required by the fundamental law of the land apply only
extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not husband was killed by accused Ladiana because this to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained
be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated
by evidence of corpus delicti. Corpus delicti has been was what the woman actually told her. Moreover, during custodial investigations. Indeed, the rights
defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in accused Ladiana had given himself up to the police enumerated in the constitutional provision "exist only in
its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has
actually been committed. As applied to a particular authorities. custodial interrogations, or in-custody interrogation of
offense, it means the actual commission by someone of "5. MARIO TALAVERA CORTEZ (hereinafter, accused persons."
the particular crime charged. In this case, as pointed
out by the Solicitor General, the corpus delicti was 'Cortez') declared that he is a retired Assistant -In the present case, petitioner admits that the
convincingly established by the prosecution. First, it Prosecutor of Laguna. questioned statements were made during the
was proven that a robbery with homicide was
committed at the Maywood Branch of the Cebuana "Prior to the conduct of the examination-in-chief preliminary investigation, not during the custodial
Lhuiller Pawnshop on August 10, 1996. Second, the on Cortez, the defense counsel made an investigation. However, he argues that the right to
concatenation of circumstantial evidence, coupled with
the extrajudicial confession of the accused established admission as to the authorship, authenticity, and competent and independent counsel also applies during
beyond reasonable doubt that Mantung committed the voluntariness of the execution of the counter- preliminary investigations.
crime.
affidavit of accused Ladiana, which was -SC disagrees. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry
*His failure to identify, much less describe the alleged subscribed and sworn to before Cortez. In said or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
malefactors who committed the crime, his counter-affidavit, accused Ladiana allegedly ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
disappearance after the incident and failure to report admitted to making the fatal shots on Francisco. has been committed, and that the respondent is
the crime, the recovery of part of the loot from his However, accused Ladiana allegedly did so in probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
possession at the time of his arrest, and his self-defense as Francisco was then purportedly Evidently, a person undergoing preliminary
extrajudicial confession during the press conference attacking accused Ladiana and had, in fact, investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be
clearly establish Mantung's guilt. already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of considered as being under custodial investigation. In
accused Ladiana. fact, this Court has unequivocally declared that a
-After the presentation of Cortez, the prosecution filed defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is
its formal offer of evidence and rested its case. The not under custodial interrogation.
LADIANA v. PEOPLE Court issued a resolution admitting all the documentary -SC, however, DISAGREES with the Sandiganbayan's
[G.R. No. 144293. evidence submitted by the prosecution. characterization of petitioner's Counter-Affidavit as an
December 4, 2002; PANGANIBAN, J -Accused Ladiana filed a Motion for Leave of Court to extrajudicial confession. It is only an admission.
(Chrislao) File Demurrer to Evidence claiming, among others, that Sections 26 and 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
the prosecution was allegedly merely able to prove the Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows:
Facts: fact of death of the victim, but not the identity of the "SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. — The act,
In their Memoranda, both the prosecution and the person who caused said death. Court denied demurrer declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
defense substantially relied upon the Sandiganbayan's to evidence. Court thereafter received by mail the may be given in evidence against him.
narration of the facts as follows: Memorandum for the defense. As for the prosecution, it "SEC. 33. Confession. — The declaration of an
opted not to file any. accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
"The prosecution presented 5 witnesses but I figured charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein,
that 2 of the testimonies are already sufficient. Their -The Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution had may be given in evidence against him."
respective testimonies, in essence, are as follows: been able to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond -In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in
"1. CARIDAD MARGALLO SAN JUAN (hereinafter, reasonable doubt. The court a quo held that his an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not
'Caridad') declared that she is the wife of Francisco San Counter-Affidavit, in which he had admitted to having directly involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the

55
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is Armed with the bolo which I had been carrying
charged. Thus, in the case at bar, a statement by the with me, I chased after Nori and I catch up He said that he was not coerced nor cajoled into
accused admitting the commission of the act charged with her at the street where I started stabbing entering a plea of guilty. He admitted that he was a
against him but denying that it was done with criminal her with the bolo, hitting her on the different prisoner in the penal colony. He was a Muslim
intent is an admission, not a confession. parts of the body. When I saw Nori fell down belonging to the Samal tribe of Siasi Sulu. He killed his
-Petitioner admits shooting the victim in his Counter- on the street badly wounded, I hurriedly left wife because while he was in prison, she did not visit
Affidavit — which eventually led to the latter's death — the place and ran towards the far end of him and she neglected their four children.
but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In Calarian. (Exh. 2).
fact, he claims he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, He agreed that his father-in-law could have the custody
whether categorized as a confession or as an Two policemen in their affidavit of March 24, 1972, of his children. He was able to leave the penal colony
admission, it is admissible in evidence against him. affirmed that Airol admitted to Sergeant Antonio because he was a "living-out-prisoner". When he went
-SC does not doubt the voluntariness of the Counter- Macrohon in their presence that he stabbed his wife to his house on January 28, 1972, his purpose was to be
Affidavit. In general, admissions may be rebutted by because she had been going with many men (Exh. 1). reconciled with his wife but when she saw him, instead
confessing their untruth or by showing they were made of waiting for him, she ran away. He had information
by mistake. Petitioner left the admissions unrebutted. On April 19, 1972, Airol Aling was charged with that his wife was guilty of infidelity or had a "kabit".
In addition, admissions made under oath, as in the case parricide in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga That was a grievous offense under Muslim customs.
at bar, are evidence of great weight against the City. It was alleged in the information that Airol was a He Identified his signature in his confession which was
declarant. They throw on him the burden of showing a convict serving sentence at the penal colony for sworn to before the clerk of court (Exh. B or 2).
mistake. robbery with frustrated homicide.
The trial court sentenced Airol Aling to death and to
The case was first called for arraignment on March 15, pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs
1974. The accused signified his willingness to plead of Norija Mohamad. It noted that he pleaded guilty with
guilty although he had no lawyer. A counsel de oficio full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of his
PEOPLE V ALING was appointed for him. The trial court granted counsel's plea. The case was elevated to this Court for automatic
AQUINO; MARCH 12, 1980 motion to transfer the arraignment to March 18. review of the death penalty.
(jaja) On that date, by agreement of the parties, the
FACTS arraignment was transferred to March 29, then to April ISSUE
Aling declared in the Chavacano dialect (his declaration 5, and later to April 30, 1974. On that last date, the WON the accused did not understand fully he nature
was translated into English) that he killed his wife information was translated into the Tausug dialect and effect of Ms plea of guilty
(whom he married according to Muslim rites because e which is spoken by the accused. With the assistance of
he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife his counsel, he pleaded guilty. HELD
was living with another man and fooling around with NO. The trial judge, a Muslim, took paIns to follow the
other men. He recounted the killing in this manner to Then, the accused was placed on the witness stand and rule that in case a plea of guilty is entered in a capital
the police: examined by his counsel. He admitted that he killed his case, evidence should be received in order to leave no
wife. He declared that after he was informed by his room for reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of
At or about one o'clock in the afternoon of counsel that the penalty for parricide is death or life the offense charged and that he had full knowledge of
January 28, 1972, I was at the seashore of imprisonment, he, nevertheless, admitted the killing of the meaning and consequences of his plea of guilty
Calarian relaxing since I have just arrived from his wife because that was the truth. (People vs. Duaban, L-31912, August 24, 1979).
Jolo, Sulu that particular day. At that time, I
was already running away from the authorities In answer to the question of the fiscal, the accused said In this case, the arraignment was postponed three
because I am an escapee from San Ramon that he understood that by pleading guilty he could be times in order to enable his counsel to confer with him
Prison and Penal Farm. Later on, I proceeded sentenced to death or reclusion perpetua because he and explain to him the consequences of his plea of
to my father's house which is just near the was an escaped convict. guilty. The accused testified. His confession and the
seashore, Upon reaching the house, I saw Nori affidavit of the policemen who investigated him were
Mohamad but I had no time to talk to her He described the confrontation with his wife. When he presented in evidence.
because immediately after seeing me, Nori ran arrived at his home, his wife ran and he pursued her.
away, going to the direction of the street. He overtook her, stabbed her but she was able to parry Disposition Judgment affirmed with the modification
the blow, and when -she fell on the ground, he that, for lack of one vote, the accused is sentenced to
repeatedly stabbed her in the abdomen. reclusion perpetua

56
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

-The evidence of the prosecution and the defense shows that Pipe gave the bread to the children. In
conflict as to the source of the poisoned bread. The reply, it seems that Pipe pointed to the defendant who
evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned was standing nearby.
bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias - Pipe could not have said that his sister handed over
PEOPLE v. LUCILA VALERO y VARILLA Pipe, a deaf-mute brother of the defendant Lucila the poisoned bread to the children because the
G.R. No. L-45283-84 Valero, and that it was Lucila Valero who gave the evidence of the prosecution shows that Pipe himself,
ERICTA; March 19, 1982 bread to Pipe for delivery to the minor children. On the gave the bread to the children. It is clear that Pipe did
(edel) other hand, the defendant Lucila Valero denies that she not understand the sign language of Jaime and vice-
ever gave bread to her deaf-mute brother, Pipe, for versa.
NATURE: Automatic Review delivery to the minor children. The evidence for the - The Court examined the entire transcript of the
FACTS: defense tends to show that the Velasco children might stenographic notes, and, except for the testimony of
-In the morning of February 22, 1969 between 7 and 9 have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco, there is nothing in
o'clock of Saturday, Michael, aged 9 months, and their father in poisoning rats in his garden. the record showing that Pipe communicated to the
Annabel, aged 1 year and 9 months, both of whom are - It is not denied that Ceferino Velasco has a vegetable prosecution witnesses by comprehensible sign
the children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after garden in his yard. He uses an insecticide called Polidol language that his sister was the source of the poisoned
eating bread containing endrin, a commercial to spray the vegetable and uses the same insecticide to bread.
insecticide. Likewise, Imelda, another minor child of kill rats. According to the testimony of the defendant, ON ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS:
Ceferino, tasted the poisoned bread and would have which was never rebutted by Ceferino Velasco, Ceferino - With particular reference to the testimony of Ceferino
died as a consequence were it not for the timely also planted vegetables in the yard of the defendant Velasco, its admission cannot be justified by claiming
medical assistance given her. All these three minor whose house is just across the street from the house of that it is a part of the res gestae. When Pipe allegedly
children were in the balcony of their house at San Ceferino Velasco. She further testified that Ceferino revealed to Ceferino Velasco that the source of the
Rafael, Bulacan, when they partook of the poisoned dipped sliced bread into an insecticide called endrin, poisoned bread was the defendant, the children had
bread. dried them up and later used the poisoned bread as a not eaten or tasted it. Nobody was yet poisoned. Stated
- On the same morning at about the same time that the bait to kill rats in the yard located by the side of his otherwise, there was no startling Occurrence yet.
three minor children partook of the poisoned bread, house. - With reference to the testimony of Jaime, there is no
three (3) puppies of Ceferino Velasco under the balcony showing that Pipe made the extrajudicial revelation
also died of poisoning. ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to establish spontaneously when he was still under the influence of
Earlier that same morning at about 6:00 o'clock, Valero’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt a startling occurrence. Pipe made his extrajudicial
Ceferino Velasco, father of the victims, was seen revelation not spontaneously but after an interview
throwing poisoned rats into a river near his house. HELD: NO. The testimonies of the witnesses Jaime and through the complicated process of sign language.
Investigations were conducted by Cpl. Bucot and Pat. Velasco were said to be hearsay for they were called to - The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
Arturo Ventuso both of the Police Department of San merely convey what Pipe told them through sign presentation of incompetent evidence, like hearsay
Rafael, Bulacan. Upon their arrival, they saw the dead language. Pipe was never presented as a witness. The evidence or evidence that violates the rule of res inter
bodies of Michael and Annabel in the house of Ceferino presentation of such evidence likewise violates the alios acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of the
Velasco and the dead puppies under the balcony. They principle of res inter alios acta. The rights of a party same does not give such evidence any probative value.
also saw several pieces of sliced pan scattered in the cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or The lack of objection may make any incompetent
sala of the house, near the balcony, and under the omission of another. evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence
balcony. They picked up some pieces of sliced bread should not be equated with weight of evidence.
under the balcony, wrapped them in a piece of paper REASONING: Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no
and submitted them to a chemist for examination. It -Rodolfo Quilang, Federico Jaime, and Ceferino Velasco probative value.
was found that the bread contained endrin, a poisonous were presented to prove that the defendant Lucila -To give weight to the testimonies of Federico Jaime
insecticide. Valero gave the poisoned bread to her deaf-mute and Ceferino Velasco, whether considered as hearsay
- The two minor children, Michael and Annabel, were brother Pipe with the alleged instruction to deliver the evidence or as part of res gestae and make the same
also autopsied and the necropsy reports showed that bread to the Velasco children. the basis for the imposition of the death penalty
both children died of poisoning by endrin. Samples of - There was nothing in the testimonies pointing to gravely violates the constitutional right of the
the blood and internal organs of both Michael and Lucila Valero as the source of the poisoned bread. defendant to meet the witnesses face to face and to
Annabel were also examined by a chemist and it was - What is evident is nothing but confusion. What Jaime subject Pipe to the rigid test of cross-examination, the
found that they contained endrin. asked from Pipe was "Who gave the bread to the only effective means to test the truthfulness, memory,
children?" The evidence of the prosecution already intelligence, and in this particular case, the ability of

57
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

the deaf-mute, Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, to - There was no motive for Pipe and Lucila Valero to the witness but to establish a motive for the crime
communicate with the outside world. In conflict poison the three children. Both Pipe and Lucila Valero charged.
between a provision of the constitution giving the loved the children. Ceferino Velasco admitted that even
defendant a substantive right and mere technical rules when Pipe was only a small boy, the latter frequented Disposition: Valero acquitted.
of evidence, we have no choice but to give effect to the his house to visit his children. When the children were
constitution. dying because of the poison, Pipe alternately fanned
-The cross-examination of Pipe, the source of the vital Michael and Annabel. NAVALLO V. SANDIGANBAYAN
information for the prosecution, would have shown - The prosecution even tried to show that there was a 234 SCRA 175
clearly his incompetence as a witness. During the quarrel bet. the wife of Ceferino and Valero when the VITUG; July 18, 1994
preliminary investigation in the Municipal Court, latter defended the children from their mother when (chris c.)
experts on deaf-mutes examined Alfonsito Valero alias they were being scolded by the her. (See, she loves the
Pipe and reported to the Municipal Court that kids!) However, even Ceferino said that the matter was FACTS
"questions addressed to him (Alfonso Valero) and just a trivial one (ergo not enough to justify killing the - Information charging petitioner for violating Art 217 of
answers given by him cannot be accurately kids. Besides, if based on that she intended to kill, she RPC was filed. Warrant of arrest was issued, followed
interpreted". would not have killed the kids as her quarrel was with by 2 alias warrants of arrest. Navallo couldn’t be
-As a result of the testimonies and the report made by the mom.) found.
the aforementioned experts, the Municipal Court - Valero, in her testimony not rebutted by the - PD 1606 took effect, creating Sandiganbayan and
dismissed the murder and frustrated murder cases prosecution, Ceferino Velasco, who was her tenant, conferring on it orig & excl jurisdiction over crimes
against Alfonsito Valero, alias Pipe, who was then the dipped sliced pieces of bread in endrin dried them up committed by public officers.
co-accused of Lucila Valero, "on the ground that he and used them as bait in his barn. - Navallo was arrested. He was released on provisional
(Pipe) is a deaf-mute and, therefore, all the proceedings -Three puppies died of poisoning under the balcony. liberty. He pleaded not guilty when arraigned by RTC.
against him were beyond his comprehension". The rats, the dogs, or maybe even his minor children - RTC transferred records to Sandiganbayan. Special
- Even prosecution witnesses Ceferino Velasco and must have found the poisoned slices of bread Prosecutor opined that since he had already been
Federico Jaime admitted on cross-examination that somewhere in the barn or in the house, scattered them, arraigned, RTC shld continue.
their interpretations of the sign language of Pipe were and the children, not knowing the danger of the poison, - Ombudsman held otherwise.
only guess work. ate them. - New order for his arrest was issued by
- Also, neither did Ceferino Valero confront Lucila Valero -The thought that he might have poisoned his own Sandiganbayan.
upon allegedly learning that the latter poisoned his children must have caused Ceferino Velasco some kind - He filed motion to quash contending (1) lack of
children. of trauma. So galling to a father is the thought that he, Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over offense & person of
- When further repeatedly asked by the defense himself, might have caused the death of his two accused (2) double jeopardy
counsel why Ceferino did not state in his affidavit that children and the near death of a third child, albeit - Sandiganbayan issued resolution denying his motion.
he learned that Lucila was the source of the poisoned unintentionally, that his natural reaction is to escape - Navallo was arraigned; he pleaded not guilty.
bread, he gave irresponsive and evasive answers. from it by throwing the blame to someone else not only - Evidence for prosec:
- When a witness makes two sworn statements and to appease his own conscience but also to avoid a. Provincial Auditor Espino made preliminary audit
these two statements incur in the gravest embarrassment before his relatives, friends and exam and found Navallo to be short of P16K+.
contradictions, the Court cannot accept either neighbors. b. Auditor then was merely able to prepare cash count
statements as proof. -Realizing that there is completely no motive for the sheet since he still had to proceed to other
A witness who changes his name and statements, like a defendant to commit the heinous crime, the trial Judge municipalities. Espino sealed the vault of Navallo.
Chameleon changes color, does not inspire confidence. conjured up something as the probable cause that c. Dulguime was directed by Espino to complete the
- SC: Obviously, Ceferino Velasco is a lying witness. If might have impelled the defendant to commit the exam and conduct final audit. He broke the seal,
Ceferino Velasco really learned from Pipe that Lucila crime. According to the observation of the Judge, Valero opened the vault, made a new cash account. He
Valero poisoned his three children, he might have was suffering from some kind of psychiatric examined the cashbook but didn’t examine the official
become violent. Surprisingly, he kept quiet. He did not abnormality or mental disorder that can make her receipts reflected.
confront Lucila Valero. In fact, his first suspicion was violent. This procedure of the trial Judge practically d. After the audit, he had cashbook deposited w/ same
that his children were "nausog" (victim of witchcraft). denies the accused the right to due process. ofc. He confirmed Navallo’s shortage, made a Report
-The surprising finding of the Judge relates not only to of Examination, and wrote Navallo a letter demanding
Other considerations which negate the guilt of the credibility of a witness but to the sanity of the restitution.
Valero: defendant. Its aim is not only to weigh the testimony of

58
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

e. Navallo neither complied nor offered any custody or deprived of his freedom in any significant they had not yet received the notice of resumption of
explanation. The receipts, cashbook, other records way.) XEI’s selling operations, and that there had been no
were lost / damaged due to typhoon. - A person under normal audit is not under custodial arrangement on the payment of interests; hence, they
- Evidence for defense: investigation. should not be charged with interest on the balance of
a. Navallo testified; his duties include collection of 3. YES the downpayment on the property. Further, they
tuition, preparation of vouchers for salaries, remittance - In any case, his having been “pressured” to sign is demanded that a deed of conditional sale over the two
of collections. belied by his own testimony. Navallo may have been lots be transmitted to them for their signatures.
b. Navallo & Macasemo both used the vault; there was persuaded, but not pressured to sign auditor’s report. - Subsequently, XEI turned over its selling operations to
no formal turnover of accountability fr Macasemo to - The law he contravened creates a presumption of OBM. Register of Deeds issued the TCTs for Manalo’s
Navallo. evidence. Failure of public officer to have public funds / lots in favor of OBM.
c. Navallo said charge was motivated by personal prop w/ w/c he’s chargeable, upon demand by officer, - Commercial Bank of Manila acquired the Xavierville
grudge on part of Espino. shall be prima facie evidence that has put missing Estate from OBM.
d. When he was summoned, the safe used by him and funds or prop to personal use. - CBM requested Perla Manalo to stop any on-going
Macasemo was already open and the cash was placed construction on the property since it was the owner of
on top of a table. He didn’t see the actual counting of Res Inter Alios Acta the lot. She informed them that her husband had a
money and no actual audit was made by Espino. contract with OBM, through XEI, to purchase the
Navallo signed only because he was pressured by BOSTON BANK (BANK OF COMMERCE) V MANALO property. She promised to send CBM the documents.
Macasemo. G.R. No. 158149 However, she failed to do so.
e. Navallo was in Manila when case was filed. He CALLEJO; February 9, 2006 - CBM filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against
didn’t exert effort to have Macasemo appear in PI, (joey) the spouses.
relying on Macasemo’s assurance that he would settle - While the case was pending, the spouses Manalo
the matter. NATURE offered an amicable settlement, promising to abide by
− Sandiganbayan declared Navallo guilty. Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the the purchase price, per agreement with XEI, through
− CA Ramos. CBM proposed a higher price, which the
spouses rejected. CBM moved to withdraw its
ISSUE FACTS complaint.
1. WON there’s double jeopardy in this case - Xavierville Estate, Inc (vendor) and Overseas Bank of - CBM was renamed the Boston Bank of the Philippines.
2. WON Navallo can invoke right under Sec 12, Art III of Manila (vendee) executed a "Deed of Sale of Real After CBM filed its complaint against the spouses
Consti Estate" over some lots in Xavierville Estate Subdivision. Manalo, the latter filed a complaint for specific
3. WON Navallo should be held liable XEI continued selling the lots as agent of OBM. performance and damages against the bank before the
- Manalo proposed to purchase two lots in the RTC.
HELD Xavierville subdivision. - Plaintiffs again proposed an amicable settlement
1. NO. - In a letter, XEI Pres. Ramos confirmed the reservation based on the current market value of the lots. The
- PD 1606 took effect 12/10/78. The law is clear: Case of Manalo’s lots. He pegged the price and scheduled defendant still insisted on a higher price.
under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan shall be the giving of downpayment and signing of the Contract - During the trial, the plaintiffs adduced in evidence the
transferred to it so long as accused has not as yet been of Conditional Sale on or before Dec. 31, 1972, but if separate Contracts of Conditional Sale executed
properly arraigned elsewhere. the selling operations of XEI resumed after that date, between XEI and 3 other buyers to prove that XEI
- Navallo’s arraignment before RTC on 7/18/85 is years the balance of the downpayment would fall due then, continued selling residential lots in the subdivision as
away fr 1978. The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan had and the spouses would sign the contract within 5 days agent of OBM after the latter had acquired the said lots.
become effective. from receipt of the notice of resumption of selling - Defendant presented in evidence the letters where
- There’s no double jeopardy bec RTC was devoid of operations. In the meantime, the spouses may XEI proposed to sell the two lots subject to two
jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment. introduce improvements subject to the rules and suspensive conditions: the payment of the balance of
Moreover, neither did the case there terminate w/ regulations imposed by XEI in the subdivision. the downpayment of the property, and the execution of
conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed. - The spouses Manalo were notified of XEI’s resumption the corresponding contract of conditional sale.
2. NO. of selling operations. However, they did not pay the - RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Such rights are invocable only when accused is under balance because Ramos failed to prepare a contract of - CA affirmed RTC. Boston Bank filed a MR, which the
custodial investigation (questioning inititated by law conditional sale and transmit the same to them. CA denied.
enforcement officers after person has been taken into - Subsequently, XEI twice furnished the spouses with a
statement of their account. In a letter, Manalo stated ISSUES

59
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

1. WON the factual issues raised by the petitioner are Ratio In a contract to sell property by installments, it is may be received to prove habit, usage, pattern of
proper not enough that the parties agree on the price as well conduct or the intent of the parties.
2. WON there was a perfected contract to sell the as the amount of downpayment. The parties must, - Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be
property likewise, agree on the manner of payment of the proved like any other facts. The offering party must
balance of the purchase price and on the other terms establish the degree of specificity and frequency of
HELD and conditions relative to the sale. Even if the buyer uniform response that ensures more than a mere
1. YES makes a downpayment or portion thereof, such tendency to act in a given manner but rather, conduct
Ratio The findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed payment cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering party
on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on the SC unless perfection of any purchase and sale between the must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that
the case falls under any of the following exceptions: (1) parties. might constitute evidence of habit. The examples
when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on Reasoning offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of
speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the - A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is evidence must be numerous enough to base on
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of
impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of object of the contract and the price. The agreement as contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a to the manner of payment goes into the price, such similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact that a disagreement on the manner of payment is prejudice and confusion.
are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. - In determining whether the examples are numerous
making its findings went beyond the issues of the case - There is no showing, in the records, of the schedule of enough, and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both payment of the balance of the purchase price on the adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. It is
appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are property amounting to P278,448.00. only when examples offered to establish pattern of
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the Based on Ramos’ February 8, 1972 and August 22, conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of 1972 letters to respondents, the determination of the inference of systematic conduct that examples are
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when terms of payment of the P278,448.00 had yet to be admissible.
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the agreed upon on or before December 31, 1972, or even - Respondents failed to allege and prove that, as a
petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by afterwards, when the parties sign the contract of matter of business usage, habit or pattern of conduct,
the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of conditional sale. XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance
the CA are premised on the supposed absence of - So long as an essential element entering into the of the purchase price in installments of 120 months of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. proposed obligation of either of the parties remains to fixed amounts with pre-computed interests, and that
- The Court may consider an issue not raised during the be determined by an agreement which they are to XEI and the respondents had intended to adopt such
trial when there is plain error. Such issue may still be make, the contract is incomplete and unenforceable. terms of payment relative to the sale of the two lots in
considered and resolved by the Court in the interest of - There is no factual and legal basis for the CA ruling question. Indeed, respondents adduced in evidence the
substantial justice, if it finds that to do so is necessary that, based on the terms of payment of the balance of three contracts of conditional sale executed by XEI and
to arrive at a just decision, or when an issue is closely the purchase price of the lots under the contracts of other lot buyers merely to prove that XEI continued to
related to an issue raised in the trial court and the CA conditional sale executed by XEI and the other lot sell lots in the subdivision as sales agent of OBM after it
and is necessary for a just and complete resolution of buyers, respondents were obliged to pay the balance acquired said lots, not to prove usage, habit or pattern
the case. When the trial court decides a case in favor of with pre-computed interest of 12% p.a. in 120-month of conduct on the part of XEI to require all lot buyers in
a party on certain grounds, the Court may base its installments. Courts should not undertake to make a the subdivision to pay the balance of the purchase
decision upon some other points, which the trial court contract for the parties, nor can it enforce one, the price of said lots in 120 months. It further failed to
or appellate court ignored or erroneously decided in terms of which are in doubt. prove that the trial court admitted the said deeds as
favor of a party. - The bare fact that other lot buyers were allowed to part of the testimony of respondent Manalo.
Reasoning pay the balance of the purchase price of lots purchased - Under Article 1469 of the New Civil Code, the price of
- CA ruling is contrary to law and is not supported by by them in 120 or 180 monthly installments does not the property sold may be considered certain if it be so
evidence. A careful examination of the factual constitute evidence that XEI also agreed to give the with reference to another thing certain. It is sufficient if
backdrop, as well as the antecedental proceedings respondents the same mode and timeline of payment. it can be determined by the stipulations of the contract
constrains us to hold that petitioner is not barred from Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of made by the parties thereto or by reference to an
asserting that XEI or OBM, on one hand, and the Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one time agreement incorporated in the contract of sale or
respondents, on the other, failed to forge a perfected is not admissible to prove that he did the same or contract to sell or if it is capable of being ascertained
contract to sell the subject lots. similar thing at another time, although such evidence with certainty in said contract; or if the contract
2. NO contains express or implied provisions by which it may

60
Prof. V. A. Avena A2010
Evidence

be rendered certain; or if it provides some method or


criterion by which it can be definitely ascertained. Such
is not the case here.
Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. CA Decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC is ordered to dismiss
the complaint.

61