Get Homework/Assignment Done

Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

Official Records
People v. Cabuang
Facts
October 1988, 11 p.m. - Evelyn De Vera and Cousin Maria Parana (Victim)
were walking home along an uninhabited place in Pangasinan. Cabuang emerged
from the rice paddies with a flashlight, asking where they were going. Evelyn walked
faster, but Maria stopped to talk to Cabuang. Evelyn looked back, and then saw
Matabang. Cabuang then grabbed Maria, and Matabang ran after Evelyn. Evelyn
was able to hide among plants in a yard. Later, she saw a tricycle with the three,
along with its driver and another person at the rear. She heard her cousin crying for
help.

She then went home to her sister, but was not able to tell her because she
was scolded. The next morning, Maria was found dead and naked along the road.
Evelyn executed a sworn statement identifying the two, since she knew them as her
barangay-mates, and they were in close proximity the night before; thestreet was
illuminated. She identified them in a lineup. The other two remain unidentified.
An OrgChembook and other belongings were found thereafter. She died 6
hours before autopsy. On the basis of the statement, the two were convicted.
Appeal
Issues
Whether the TC erred in finding that Evelyn identified them, since
the entry in the police blotter stated that the assailants were still
unidentified even after she was questioned by the police.
Held/Ratio
No. On initial questioning, she was still in shock; there was thus the 11 a.m.
blotter report, then the statement later that day. The delay is not prejudicial.
Reluctance after a startling occurrence is understandable. The few hoursbetween
the blotter and the statement do not prejudice her credibility.
Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done, are not conclusive proof.
They are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein. Testimony in open court is
commonly more lengthy and detailed. The court must base its findings on all the
evidence gathered. They were clearly identified.
Denial and alibi do not avail. Cabuang says he was at the wake of the
daughter of Juinio the whole night, but did not elaborate or corroborate. Matabuang
said he never left his house, but was inconsistent and uncorroborated. It was not
impossible for either to have been there. Postive identification prevails.
The circumstantial evidence suffices. They were walking in an uninhabited
place when the two suddenly appeared and grabbed Maria. She saw them on a
tricycle with Maria crying. The next day, she was found dead by the same road.

People v. Gabriel

Facts
Gabriel, charged in conspiracy with Ramon Doe for the murder of Tonog.
November 1989, 7 p.m., North Harbor, a fistfight occurred between Tonog and
Gabriel and Ramon. They were broken up by onlookers. Gabriel and Ramon went to
Marcos Road, but returned with blades, approached Tonog, and stabbed him in the
stomach and back. They left him on the ground, and was dead on arrival. Defense
Version - Gabriel saw Tonog drunk, and parried a blow from him. Tonog then
attacked Ramon, but Ramon ran away. Tonog then met "Mando", who was likewise
boxed and fought back. Ramon returned with a bolo, and despite Gabriel's warnings,
both stabbed Tonog and fled. He stayed with the victim. Witness Gonzales arrived
after he wwas taken to the hospital, asked what happened, and wanted him to
testify. His refusal, plus the fact that Gonzales owed him P300 earned her ire; thus,
the charge. Appeal.
Issues
Whether the TC erred in giving credence to Gozales' and Ochobillo's
testimony;
in finding evident premeditation and treachery
Held/Ratio
No. Their testimonies were direct and candid. That her owing him a debt of
only P300 resulting in the charge is unbelievable. Her supposed grudge against him
since he enticed customers to patronize a different carinderia is unbelievable, since
he himself was eating at Gonzales' carinderia. "Mando" is a figment of the
imagination, as not a single witness was presented re: his identity. It should have
been easy, since there were many bystanders. If there was a grudge, it is unlikely
that she would ask him what happened. It is unbelievable that she arrived only after
the fight, since her store was right in front. Delay is likewise acceptable.
Accused emphasizes the Advance Information Sheet by Pat. Steve
Casimoro, which only named Ramon Doe as the suspect. But this cannot defeat
positive testimony, since entries in official records are only prima facie evidence.
Further, the Sheet was never formally offered. The Sheet was prepared after
interviewing Camba, an alleged witness - he was never presented.
The requisites for the admissibility of an official record are(1) the entry was
made by a police officer or a person specially enjoined by law to do so; (2) It was
made in the performance of his duties or a duty specially enjoined by law; and (3)He
had sufficient knowledge of the facts either personally or through official
information.
The AIS is inadmissible, since Casimoro had no personal knowledge of the
incident. It only came from Camba, and this is not official information, since the

person who makes the statement must have personal knowledge and the
duty to give the statement for the record.
The discrepancies, i.e. the precise location of the stab, 7pm vs 630pm, 5
minute interval, are minor and inconsequential. His presence does not indicate
innocence. (what)
Treachery is present, since after the end of the fight, they snuck up on him
with weapons. Evident premeditation is NOT present. A lapse of 5 minutes is not
enough for calm and cool reflection.

Dela Cruz v. Sison

Facts
Appeal from validity of Deed of Sale. Complainant Epifania DLC died during
CA pendency, substituted by niece Laureana. Epifania alleged that in 1992, she
discovered that her Pangasinan riceland was transferred to her nephew, Eduardo
Sison, through a Deed of Sale dated 1989. She filed a complaint with the RTC to
declare it null on the ground of fraud, as he inserted it in the middle of the docs of
transfer to Demetrio.
Spouses Sison denied
fraud, since the Deed was notarized, and was
investigated by the DAR, evidenced by affidavits and Certifications from the PAR
and the payment of CGT. They bore her signature. They alleged possession since
1989, corroborated by the caretaker. The RTC ruled in her favor, noting she had 2
residence certs for 1989, and that she had no reason to sell since she was
doingfine, but the CA held the sale valid.
Issues
Whether or not the sale is valid.
Held/Ratio
Valid. She asserts that she was 79 y/o and unable to read and understand
english, but she testified that she "read the document on top". Further, the RTC
noted mental acuity during her testimony. A comparison of the Deeds for Demetrio
and Eduardo shows glaring differences that cannot be missed. Different typewriter
with a bigger font, different date, different residence cert. number.
Further, the deed was notarized. Unfortunately, the notary public has died.
Thus, the rule that acknowledged documents are public documents admissible
without proof of authenticity and due execution; they are presumed regular, and
Epifania failed to rebut this through clear and convincing evidence.

Though she had bank accounts, she had stopped making bagoong, and her
deposit decreased from 1M to 346k, showing that she needed money. The possibility
of sale for cash is thus not remote, considering that 20 days later, she sold to
Demetrio.
The series of official actsleading to the transfer lends credence - affidavit of
tenant, DAR investigation report, affidavit of transferor, PAR clearance, Revenue
District Officer approval, appearance twice before the Municipal Agrarian Reform
officer, DAR visitors logbook. Too varied to have accomplished through fraud. Even
Demetrio said the land was sold to Eduardo.

Commercial Lists
State v. Lungsford
Facts
April 1975, Lungsford was arrested for possession of a 1968 Plymouth Road
Runner stolen in January from James Wilton. Wilton was not presented. Lungsford
stated that he bought it from James Law, who was also not presented. Lungsford
decries the admission of certain hearsay evidence the NATB Trace and a Criminal
Investigation Report of the Edison Police Dept.
The manner in which the police attempted to prove possession during arrest.
(Car has three distinguishing numbers - VIN, CSN [confidential serial number;
factory order number for Chrysler], and PSN [packing slip number]). Here, as there
was no VIN, a trace through the CSN was conducted. The trace resulted in a VIN in
the name of Wilton, but the VIN did not completely match. H/2, 68/88.
The State alleged that Lungsford stole it and got a VIN tag from a similar
vehicle. It produced an investigation report from Wilton, which contained an
incorrect VIN. Sgt. Barrett testified that he phoned Wilson and then obtained the
correct VIN that matched the CSN of the stolen vehicle.
Defense - He bought if from James Law, and that its windshield was later

broken, and ignition stolen. He said he bought new seats, and replaced the engine
and radiator. No receipts were produced. It was later re-registered even though the
registration showed blue, when it was actually gray. The VIN was different.
The State relied on the NATB's (National Automotive Theft Bureau) trace. It is
a nonprofit corporation financed by 95% of the industry.
Issues
Whether Lungsford is guilty.
Held/Ratio
No. BOTH THE NATB AND POLICE REPORT ARE INADMISSIBLE. The entire case
rests upon the trace conducted by the NATB. The qualification of evidence is that it
must be published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
considered useful and reliable; the judge must be convinced of these. The
rational is that their use is necessary; it is difficult to call all who participated in its
compilation. There is reason to rely on its accuracy since the success of a business
depends thereon. The basis of trustworthiness is general reliance by the public or a
particular segment; the motivation of the compiler is to foster reliance through
accuracy. Examples - pedigree register of animals, shipping register, "Iron Age",
bible of the steel industry, The Morning Telegraph.
However, in a case of a stolen weapon wherein the prosecution relied on a
computer report from the National Crime Information Center, it was ruled
inadmissible. It was not shown how and when the information was passed, how and
who fed the information into the computer, who programmed it, how the data was
retrieved, and the accuracy. Here, the NATB is inadmissible; it would have
been had there been a hearing establishing trustworthiness and reliance.
Also, Lungsford questions the admissibility of the Report of the Edison Police
Dept. which was admitted as a "Business Entry". Since the State could not locate
Wilton, it relied on the information Wilton allegedly gave to the police about his
stolen car. This is the only evidence thereof.
Sgt. Barrett was presented to prove that it was made in the ordinary course
of business. The report was actually made by Detective Vittello, who was not
produced. He recorded in handwriting the statement. Barrett was the one who
recorded the corrected VIN after calling Wilton.
Inadmissible. Police records, although business records, cannot be vehicles
to confer admissibility to hearsay declarations - it cannot be predicated merely on
the circumstance on that it was made to an officer who paraphrased it. (i.e. the
officer must have personal or official knowledge) The criteria of (1) recording in the
usual course of business and (2) the declarant is under duty to supply it truthfully
must be met. The second criteria is not present, since citizens are not under a

business duty to make an honest report.

PNOC Shipping v. CA
Facts
1977 - M/V Maria Efigenia XV collided with Petroparcel (Luzon Stevedoring) at
Batangas. The BMI found the Petroparcel at fault. Efigenia sued Luzon Stevedoring,

later substituted by PNOC as owner. Through amendment, it prayed for the value of
the vessel and its equipment, as well as losses due to unrealized profits and
inflation. The RTC ruled in Efigenia's favor for P6.4 million.
It relied on its General Manager Del Rosario who testified as to its cargo of
fish, engines, radar, and compass. It relied on quotations and invoices of the prices
of the vessel and its equipment, all dated 1987. PNOC presented only a senior
estimator with no documents and quotations, since it was "a sort of secret scheme".
The CA affirmed, citing the documentary evidence as quotations, journals, and price
lists. Hence, the appeal, questioning the award which was not based on its actual
value in 1977, and the failure to prove the extent of the damages.
Issues
Whether the award is proper
Held/Ratio
No. Reduced to P2M nominal damages since two decades na.
Actual/compensatory damages must reflect the value at the time of loss or
destruction; compensation, and not infliction of penalty. Efigenia proved damages
through its GM's sole testimony and quotations of prices made 10 years after the
loss. PNOC objected on the ground of lack of authentication.
GM Del Rosario could not have testified on the writings, as he is not the
author; he does not have personal knowledge thereof. Further, since he was the
owner, his testimony may be self-serving.
The price quotations are hearsay, since the persons who made them were not
presented. They are not admissible under any exception. A commercial list is
admissibleif (1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation; (2) the statement is contained in alist, register, periodical, or other
published compilation; (3) said compilation is published for the use of persons
engaged in that occupation; and (4) it is generally used and relied upon by said
persons.
The exhibits are mere price quotations. They are not published. They are not
standard periodicals or handbooks. They are simply letters responding to Del
Rosario's queries. Even if the CA admitted them on the ground of caution,
hearsay evidence cannot be given probative value. Admissibility =/= value.
Nevertheless, nominal damages are in order. Efigenia claimed P800,000 in its
amended complaint, which can be used as basis for nominal damages.
Minor issue of jurisdiction re: low docket fee of P1,252 - payable later on as a
lien. Raised only after judgment.

Prior Testimony
Tan v. CA
Facts
July 1955 - Carmelita and Rodolfo Tan, through their mother Celestina,, sued
Respondent Francisco Tan for acknowledgment and support.
March 1956 - Celestina, after presenting evidence, moved to dismiss on the
ground of an amicable settlement. On the same day, the subscribed an affidavit
stating that Francisco Tan is not the father. The CFI allowed it.
November 1957 - Carmelita and Rodolfo, through their grandfather,
commenced the same action. It was dismissed in 1960 on the ground of Res
Judicata. It was reconsidered in 1961, with judgment rendered in their favor. The CA
reversed. The children thus appeal in forma pauperis before the SC.
Issues
Whether the testimonies of their witnesses
admissible;

in the prior case are

Whether they are entitled to acknowledgment and support.

Held/Ratio
No and No. They were subpoenad multiple times, but did not appear. They
are not dead. They are within the Philippines. They were not unable, i.e. some grave
cause such as disease or inability to speak. They only refused. The remedies of
contempt/bench warrant were available but not availed of.
They alleged that Celestina and Francisco cohabited from 1936 to 1944.
Francisco denied this as a married man. Celestina was a yaya, but only in 1939.
Carmelita and Rodolfo were born 1942 and 1944. She herself made an affidavit
pointing to another man as the father.
The baptismal certificates were admissible for failure to comply with statute.
The period of cohabitation was not proved, so the certs were immaterial to prove
birthdate. Their testimonies were inconsistent, and Celestina was of loose character.

Ohio v. Roberts
Facts
1975 - Herschel Roberts was arrested for forgery of a check in the name of
Bernard Isaacs, and possession of stolen credit cards belonging the the Sp. Isaacs. A
preliminary hearing was held in the Municipal Court, and the Defense called Anita
Isaacs, the daughter, as the lone witness. She testified that she knew him and
allowed him to use her apartment; she refused to say that she gave the cards and
checks to him. The prosecution did not question her. He was then indicted for
forgery, the stolen cards, and for heroin possession.
Five subpoenas were then issued to Anita, who failed to respond and appear.
After the case went to trial, Roberts took the stand and testified that Anita Isaacs
gave him the checkbook and cards with the understanding that he could use them.
The prosecution presented Anita's prior testimony, relying on a Code that allows
the use of prelim. examination testimony of a witness who cannot for any reason be
produced.
The defense objected on the ground of the Confrontation Clause. At a voir
dire hearing, it was found that Anita left for home after the examination, and was at
SanFo a year before trial due to a welfare application. She called her parents only
once, 7/8 months prior to say she was "traveling" outside Ohio. There was no way
to reach her. The TC then admitted the transcript and convicted him. The CA
reversed for lack of a good faith effort to secure attendance prior to the hearing (no
showing of failure of service). The state disagreed with the CA's reasoning, but still
held it inadmissible, since the mere opportunity to cross does not suffice.
Issues
Whether the testimony is admissible
Held/Ratio
Yes. The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways (1) the production or

unavailability of a declarant, and (2) when unavailable, only hearsay marked with
such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the GR
is admissible. They must bear an indicia of reliability, i.e. affording a satisfactory
basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement. He must be unavailable AND
reliable; firmly rooted hearsay exception.
In Green, Porter professed a lapse of memory at trial; Prosec presented his
prior statements, and were properly admitted, since the preliminary hearing
approximated trial, with same counsel and opportunity to cross.
In this case, the defense's questioning partook of cross-examination, with
leading questions all around. While she was not qualified as hostile, it is
substantially a cross, complying with the confrontation requirement. The fact that
he had a different lawyer is immaterial. Due to adequate opportunity to cross, there
is sufficient indicia of reliability.
As to absence or unavailability, good faith and reasonableness are the test. In
this case, 5 subpoenas were issued over several months. Her parents tried to locate
her after the welfare officer's call, and siblings did not know how to reach her. These
suffice, even though hindsight might indicate other courses. The possibility of a
refusal is not the equivalent of asking and receiving a rebuff.

Opinion Rule
Dilag v. Merced
Dilag & Co. owned a 1938 International truck, entrusted to CorSec Dilag for
the business. In 1944, the height of the occupation, it was stolen in Laguna. After
liberation, Dilag saw the truck in San Pablo in 1945 and had it seized. Though he
filed a complaint for theft filed against Merced, Ben, Pua, and Zandueta, it was
dismissed. The company thus filed this civil action for recovery and damages.
Merced retained possession due to a counterbond.
Merced claims he bought it from Ben. Ben and Pua claim to have bought it
from Zandueta. Zandueta was in default. The CFI ruled Dilag the owner and
absolved Ben and Pua from damages. Merced appeals.
Issues
Whether Dilag is the owner
Whether Merced is liable for Damages

Whether Lim Ben is liable to Merced for Damages

Held/Ratio
Yesyesyes. Merced relies of in certified copy of the registration cert. for truck
with motor no. HD 232 22158. Dilag proved that it was tampered; only the last three
digits are different. Also, he pointed out distinguishing features, i.e. (1) the general
appearance, (2) paint on the hood, (3) wooden running board, (4) iron bars on the
windshield, (5) welded tie rod, (6) welded propeller shaft, (7) half inch screw on the
cylinder head, (8) hole in the radiator. He was corroborated by his mechanic who
described the repairs.
Merced says 3 to 6 were all his doing, and that these were all visible at a
glance. No.
Also, Dilag had a working key with no signs of alteration (Briggs and
Stratton), while Merced had a scratched up key (Cabinet Lock Co.), a cabinet key
converted for the truck. (Not presented, only described in the minutes from the
crimcase)
The certification of registration is not conclusive in view of the tampering. The
last three digits are larger and out of alignment; the 8 is inverted, the 5 is lower.
Aguilar of the Bureau of Public Works testified on the alteration. Not
qualified daw as an expert, but he has been with the Bureau since 1930 as inspector
in charge. There is not precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or
experience is acquired. A witness can be an expert even without scientific study and
training. No special study is needed. The certificate is likely for a different truck,
made to apply to this one through the engine number's alteration.
Damages are proper at P5,000,and it is not excessive, since he himself
testified that it earned P400 daily. Time of filing/time of loss irrelevant thusly.
Lim Ben is liable for implied warranty against eviction, as he was impleaded.
But since no actual eviction yet, damages are o be computed after execution of
judgment and presentation of evidence of value.

U.S. v. Trono
Facts
Murder of Perez. Late at night of Feb. 4, 1903, Perez, Guevarra, and Bautista
were arrested in their houses by Trono, Maximo, et al., members of the municipal
police. They were suspected of theft of a revolver belonging to Maximo Angeles.
They were taken to Sapang-Angelo, where they were beaten. Perez was heard

saying "Maximo, have pity on me or else kill me at once".

On the way back to the municipal building, Perez had to lean on a policeman
the whole distance and was unable to stand. They were discharged the next day by
the municipal president, and nothing was brought against them.His brother,
Estanislao, had to fetch him on a boat, and he had to go to bed. The mother, seeing
his condition, charged them all of attempted homicide. Perez was unable to eat,
urinated blood, and was in great pain. He died the next day.
Issues
Whether or not they are guilty.
Held/Ratio
Yes. Maximo and Trono sentenced. Bautista and Guevara testified to hearing
blows and groans. They were corroborated by Santos and Espedirion, who was sent
by Perez's mom to follow. No need to see, and was evidenced by complaints of pain,
as well as bruises.
The municipal president testified for the defense, stating that Perez was ill; he
inquired since he was pale. No credit, since mere pallor would not ordinarily attract
attention - rather, he was partial to Trono, since he refused to testify as to "family
secrets."
Dr. Icasiano was obviously in favor of Trono, but was forced to certify his
injuries. Though the defense contends that the death was not due to the injuries,
but due to hepatic colic by hypertrophic cirrhosis, this is not given credit. Nothing
was shown to corroborate drunkenness. The Dr. referred to Cholera and wanted him
buried quickly under the pretense, but mother says no ailments. Prior to that, he
even said rifle blows were the cause. Also, the Dr. stated that he went on foot, but
this is incorrect, as he was compelled to do so and under support. He is also an
intimate friend of Maximo Angeles.
Expert testimony is worthy evidence, but not exclusive nor binding. Free to
weigh and counterbalance.