People V Precioso:

robbery in band with multiple rape.

Facts:
Ninakawan ung store ni Galvadores store. 9:30pm, 4 na lalake, naka-cover ung mukha, ginising
yung kasambahay ng store owner, at pinapunta sa bahay ng store owner (10 meters ang layo)
para pagbuksan ng pinto. Pagbukas ng pinto (nagising si boss) agad pumasok at ninakawan ang
bahay. habang ninanakawan ni-rape si leah, hinalikan nakita ngayon ang mukha. ni-rape rin si
teresita, kinalmot mukha, ng rapist, nakita niya mukha.

Pagdating sa court, since namukhaan nga sila, nagka-trial, ang ginawa ng mga Accused, puro
denial lang.

Issue:
Whether a mere denial is sufficient to escape liability?

Ruling:
No. denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving
evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over
the testimony of credible witnesses. Ergo, as between the positive declarations of the prosecution
witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence.

Judicial Notice:

Estrada Vs Desierto:

facts:
FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal
gambling, and other forms of corruption were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on
December 7, impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more serious
allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were made and were only stopped on January
16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President, succeeded in suppressing damaging
evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the
entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote
against Estrada.

On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at
EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a snap presidential election to be held concurrently with
congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this election.
On January 20, SC declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada
constructively resigned his post. At noon, Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the
crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left Malacaang Palace. Erap,
after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin the respondent
Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his
term as president ends. He also prayed for judgment confirming Estrada to be the lawful and
incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties
of his office

Ruling;
yes.

We now slide to the second issue. None of the parties considered this issue as posing a political
question. Indeed, it involves a legal question whose factual ingredient is determinable from the
records of the case and by resort to judicial notice. Petitioner denies he resigned as President or
that he suffers from a permanent disability. Hence, he submits that the office of the President was
not vacant when respondent Arroyo took her oath as president.
The issue brings under the microscope of the meaning of section 8, Article VII of the
Constitution which provides:
Sec. 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of the
President, the Vice President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then acts as President until President or Vice President shall have been
elected and qualified.
x x x.
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should be considered resigned as
of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Republic.
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are
beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of
relinquishment.[if !supportFootnotes][78][endif] The validity of a resignation is not governed by any
formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be
implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
In the cases at bar, the facts shows that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation
before he evacuated Malacaang Palace in the Afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking
of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined
from his acts and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior,
contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material
relevance on the issue.

Judicial Admissions:

Maxicare vs Carmela:
Facts:

Maxicare, domestic corp nagbebenta ng health insurance. kumuha sila ng agent, si carmela. Si
carmela nagbenta sa Meralco, nagsend ng proposals sa mga officers ng Meralco, pero, ang
ginawa ng Maxicare, nagusap sila directly ni Meralco, kinuha ni meralco ung plan, nanghingi ng
commission si carmela.

nagkaroon ng trial.

sabi ni maxicare, sa Annex F, sa letter ni carmela kay Maxicare na hindi daw nag work out ung
paguusap nila ni meralco ay katulad ng judicial admission (kasi ginawa sa pleading).

Issue:

Wether the statement of carmela is tantamount to judicial admission?

Ruling:

Yes. However, the court explained that as a general rule a judicial admission is conclusive upon
the party making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions:
1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and
2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to
contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission.

sa mga pleadings ni carmela, paulit ulit niyang sinabi na siya ang broker between meralco and
maxicar, pasok ung #2 sa exception, na no such admission was in fact made, hindi naman ganun
talaga ung ibig sabihin ni carmela, na read out of context lang.

Universal food corp vs ca:

Facts:

nadiscover ni private resp (Magdalo francisco) ang sauce na Mafran and niregster as his
trademark. walang pera, nag execute ng bill of assignment together with the petitioner here.
trademark niya, benta nila. Subsequently, nagmahal ang raw materials, na postpone ang
production. nung binalik na, nag produce lang ng 100 boxes, pero hindi na isinama si Magdalo
Francisco.

Sa trial, sinabi ng ng Petitioner, na sila daw may ari na ng recipe na mafran based sa bill of
assignment: last part of the second paragraph recites that the respondent patentee "assign,
transfer and convey all its property rights and interest over said Mafran trademark and formula
for MAFRAN SAUCE unto the Party of the Second Part," and the last paragraph states that such
"assignment, transfer and conveyance is absolute and irrevocable (and) in no case shall the
PARTY OF THE First Part ask, demand or sue for the surrender of its rights and interest over
said MAFRAN trademark and mafran formula."
issue:

Wether the said paragraph is tantamount to judicial admission?

ruling:
Yes. PERO! pag binasa mo ng buo ung bill of assignment: Fourthly, it is alleged in paragraph 3
of the respondents' complaint that what was ceded and transferred by virtue of the Bill of
Assignment is the "use of the formula" (and not the formula itself). This incontrovertible fact is
admitted without equivocation in paragraph 3 of the petitioner's answer. Hence, it does "not
require proof and cannot be contradicted."

Relevance and conditional admissibility:

People vs Abalos:

Si tatay abalos and anak abalos nag-aaway, nagtatalo, biglang may sumigaw na babae na sinasabi
na may nag-aaway sa gitna ng fiesta (nagaaway sila kasi pinigilan ni anak si tatay pagalitan ung
mga tao niya kasi konti lang ung dinalang pera sa business nila). Tapos may lumapit na pulis,
nagtanong ano problema, nakita si tatay abalos, major pala siya, nagsalute, si anak biglang
kumuha ng 2x2 na ply wood, hinampas sa gilid ng ulo ni deceased officer.

On trial sinabi ni abalos na dapat daw syang maacquit kasi hindi daw pwedeng paniwalaan ung
testimony ng lone witness na si felipe basal.

issue: wether or not the accused should be acquited?

ruling:

No. the court rule in relation to the relevance of evidence.

Definition: Relevant evidence - evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any
matter provable in an action. Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish
the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.

Dito sa case nato sabi ng court: Appellant's contention that the deceased had attacked and
attempted to divest his father of his firearm is rather preposterous considering that no reason was
advanced as to why the deceased patrolman would assault a police officer of superior rank.
Parenthetically, the condition of visibility at the time of the incident was conducive not only to
the clear and positive identification of appellant as the victim's assailant but likewise to an actual
and unobstructed view of the events that led to the victim's violent death.

From the evidence in the case at bar, the prosecution has convincingly proved, through the clear
and positive testimony of Basal, the manner in which the victim was killed by herein appellant.
The record is bereft of any showing that said prosecution witness was actuated by any evil
motivation or dubious intent in testifying against appellant. Moreover, a doctrine of long
standing in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and positive, is
sufficient to convict an accused.

Appellant's testimony is thus negated by the rule that evidence, to be believed, must have been
given not only by a credible witness, but that the same must also be reasonably acceptable in
itself.

Object as Evidence:

people vs tacipit:
facts:
complainant, Onelia Pamittan, 17 years old. She had a friend, Eden Molina, who studied at the
same school and lived about two (2) kilometers from the school. pumunta si victim sa bahay ni
eden, nandun kapatid ni eden at friends niya, kumaen sila ng ricecake, bago umalis si victim, ni
restrain siya ni roland tacipit, ung accused dinala si victim sa coconut plantation at nirape.
pinunit niya ang palda at damit ng victim, at nirape, hinatid pauwi at sinabing wag
magsusumbong or dead si family. eh nagsumbong! ni report.

defense ni accused: sweetheart daw sila at binigay daw ni girl ang kaniyang pagkababae sa lalake
ng buong buo.

the accused argues that the physical evidence as well as the actuations of the parties concerned
are not consistent with the allegation of rape but with carnal knowledge done with the consent of
both the accused and the complainant. As proof, the accused pointed out the lack of external
injuries on the body of the complainant. This fact negates the employment of force by the
accused on the complainant and rules out struggle or any other form of resistance on the part of
the complainant.

trial court: rendered judgement against the accused.

issue: wether the trial court is correct in its ruling?

ruling:
yes. in re object as evidence: For one, although there was an absence of external injuries on the
body of the complainant, the clothes worn by her at the time of the offense speak well of the use
of force and the presence of a struggle. As the trial court noted:

Her T-shirt was torn which corroborates her testimony that it was forcibly removed. It also
proves that she offered resistance to the criminal advances of the accused. Her shorts, like her
panty, had blood stains. Her panty was detached from her shorts. Her bra was torn, also denoting
that it was forcibly removed. These physical evidence . . . are consistent only with the force and
compulsion applied on her; they prove she offered resistance and her defloration was against her
will.
ung t-shirt, object evidence yun.

Villaflor vs summers:

Facts:
may criminal case against villaflor and florentino souingco for adultery. the court ordered
villaflor to submit her body for inspection para malaman kung pregnant. The accused refused to
obey the order on the ground that such examination of her person was a violation of the
constitutional provision relating to self-incrimination. Thereupon she was found in contempt of
court and was ordered to be committed to Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical
examination required by the court.

Issue: wether the inspection of a body is a violation of right against self-incrimination?

Ruling:
No. Court ruled:

Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against
compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular
inspection of the body of the accused is permissible.