Case 10: WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (WINCORP) vs. AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR. et al. (G.R.

No. 194128, December 7, 2011)

Facts: The Francias invested their money in Wincorp for 11% interest for 43 days. They failed to collect
upon maturity and their investment were rolled over for another 34 days for which Confirmation
Advices were issued by Wincorp indicating Pearlbank as the actual borrower of the funds invested.
Failing again to collect, the Francias filed a collection suit against Wincorp and respondent Pearlbank
before the RTC. Wincorp did not object or comment to the evidence offered by the Francias and filed a
motion to postpone hearing 3 days before the scheduled hearing for presentation of Wincorp’s defense
evidence which was denied. RTC considered Wincorp to have waive its right to present evidence. It held
Wincorp solely liable to the Francias and dismissed the case against Pearlbank. CA affirmed. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Was the CA correct in not admitting the documents attached to Wincorp’s pleadings?

Held: Yes. It appears that Wincorp was given ample opportunity to file its Comment/Objection to the
formal offer of evidence of the Francias but it chose not to file any. All the documents attached by
Wincorp to its pleadings before the CA cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole
reason that, as correctly observed by the CA, these documents were not formally offered as evidence in
the trial court. To consider them now would deny the other parties the right to examine and rebut
them. This is in accordance with Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
BAYANI v. PEOPLE

Topic: Consideration

DOCTRINE:

SECTION 28. Effect of want of consideration. Absence or failure of consideration is a matter of defense
as against any person not a holder in due course; and partial failure of consideration is a defense pro
tanto whether the failure is an ascertained and liquidated amount or otherwise.

SECTION 24. Presumption of consideration. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party thereto for value.

FACTS:

Alicia Rubia arrived at the grocery store of DoloresEvangelista and subsequently asked the latter to
rediscounther PSBank check amounting to Php 55,000

The check was drawn by Leodegario Bayani, petitionerherein, against his account with PSBank and
then post-dated August 29, 1992

Considering that both Rubia and Bayani were long-timecustomers and knowing the fact that Bayani is a
good man,Evangelista agreed to rediscount the check

However, when Evangelista deposited the check in heraccount with the Far East Bank and Trust
company onSeptember 11, 1992, the check was dishonored for thereason that Bayani had closed the
said account with PSBank

The dishonoring of the check was evidenced by a stamp atits dorsal portion

Evangelista then informed Rubia that the said check wasdishonored and demanded the return of her
Php 55,000

Rubia, in her reply, stated that she was only requested byBayani to have the check rediscounted

A series of finger pointing ensued but ultimately it led toEvangelista filing a case against Bayani
for violating BP22

Bayani, in his defense stated that there was no valuableconsideration when Evangelista issued the
check. He did notreceive the Php 55,000.

It must be noted that Bayani merely stated the fact that hedid not receive the money from Evangelista;
no further effortwas given by Bayani to prove so.

RTC: ruled against Bayani

CA: confirmed the decision by the RTC

ISSUE: Whether or not Bayani’s defense of lack of valuable consideration is valid

HELD: NO

Petitioner cannot evade criminal liability by merely statingthat he did not receive the money

It was shown during the trial that Evangelista rediscountedthe check and gave the Php 55,000 to Rubia
after the latterendorsed the same; therefore, it must be considered thatEvangelista is a holder in due
course

According to Section 28 of the NIL, absence or failure ofconsideration is a matter of defense only as
against anyperson not in due course

Moreover in Section 24 of the NIL, it is presumed that thereis a valid consideration; mere denial of
receipt of the moneycannot overcome this presumption

PETITION BY BAYANI IS DENIED

RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Rubia went to Evangelista to have a check rediscounted for the amount of P55,000. The said check is
drawn by Bayani, held by Rubia, and subsequently, endorsed to Evangelista. The check bounced and
Evangelista filed a suit of violation of B.P. 22against Bayani. Bayani claims that he is not liable for such
since the check was issued with absence or failure of consideration. The SC held that Evangelista is a
holder in due course, thus, the defense of Sec. 28 will not acquit Bayani of the charges against him.

DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER: The presumption of consideration is proven when the Court noted that the
evidence on record shows that Evangelistarediscounted the check and gave P55,000.00 to Rubia after
the latter endorsed the same. As such, Evangelista is a holder ofthe check in due course. Under
Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, absence or failure of consideration is a matterof
defense only as against any person not a holder in due course, thus, Bayani is liable.

ISSUES / RATIO:

1.WON there was absence or failure of consideration2.

2. WON Bayani is guilty of violating B.P. 22

1.No.

The presumption of consideration is proven when the Court noted that the evidence on record shows
thatEvangelista rediscounted the check and gave P55,000.00 to Rubia after the latter endorsed the
same. As such,Evangelista is a holder of the check in due course. Under Section 28 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law, absence orfailure of consideration is a matter of defense only as against
any person not a holder in due course, thus, Bayani isliable. Such presumption cannot be overcome by
the petitioner’s bare denial of receipt of the amount of P55,000.00from Rubia.

2.Yes.

In this case, the prosecution adduced documentary evidence that when the petitioner issued the subject
checkon or about August 20, 1992, the balance of his account with the drawee bank was only P2,414.96.
During theconference in the office of Atty. Emmanuel Velasco, Evangelista showed to the petitioner and
his wife a photocopyof the subject check, with the notation at its dorsal portion that it was dishonored
for the reason account closed.Despite Evangelista’s demands, the petitioner refused to pay the amount
of the check and, with his wife, pointed toRubia as the one liable for the amount. The collective
evidence of the prosecution points to the fact that at the timethe petitioner drew and issued the check,
he knew that the residue of the funds in his account with the drawee bankwas insufficient to pay the
amount of the check.
ESTRADA v. DESIERTO367 SCRA 108 (2001)

Doctrine: The ban on hearsay does not cover independently relevant statements, which consist
of statements that are independently relevant of the truth asserted therein. They belong to twoclasses:
1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue, 2. Those statements which arecircumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue.The second class includes the following: Statement of a person showing his
state of mind;Statement of a person showing his physical condtion; Statement of a person to infer a
state of mind of another person; Statements which may identify the date, place and person in
question;Statements to show a lack of credibility of a witness.

FACTS: The case at bar stemmed from the events that transpired during EDSA II. President
JosephEstrada pursuant to the calls for resignation, left Malacanang, and pursuant to this,
GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo, then the Vice President under Estrada’s reign took his place. Estrada now
goesto the court to contest the legitimacy of Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency, arguing that he
neverresigned as President, and hence, claims to still be the lawful President of the Philippines.
Amongthe pieces of evidence offered to prove that Estrada had indeed resigned from the presidency
isthe Angara Diary, chronicling the last moments of Estrada in Malacanang.

ISSUE: 1. Whether the Angara Diary is inadmissible as hearsay evidence? - NO.

RATIO: The Supreme Court held that the Angara diary is not an out0of0court statement but is a part of
the pleadings of the case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Angara diaries contained direct
statements of Estrada with respect to his proposal for the holding of a snap election, his intent to leave
his post by Monday and his exasperation over the bureaucracy, controversy and red tape.

An ANALYSIS of the same leads to the conclusion that the contents of the diary may be more accurately
classified as admissions of a party.

Pursuant to the Rules of Evidence, “the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him. Moreover, the statements cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence
because the same can be properly categorized as independently relevant statements. Independently
relevant statements are those which are “independent” from the truth of the statements.

Independently relevant statements may be classified into statements which consist of the very facts in
issue and those which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue, such as the statements of a
person showing his state of mind or statements of a person from which an inference may be made as
tothe state of mind of another. Pursuant to this, it may well be said that the entries in the Angara diary
may be regarded as containing statements regarding the state of mind of Estrada, hence constituting
circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign.
Topic:

Evidence; Hearsay

Title:

Patula v. people G.

R. No. 164457

April 11, 2012

BERSAMIN J.

Facts:

In a Estafa case, witness auditor based her testimony on the entries found in thereceipts supposedly
issued by petitioner and in the ledgers corresponding to eachcustomer, as well as on the unsworn
statements of some of the customers.

Issue: Is the testimony hearsay?

Ruling: Yes

Analysis: Sec. 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, states that a witness can testify only to thosefacts that she
knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from herown perception, except as
otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. Witness-lady-auditor witness bereft of personal knowledge of
the disputed fact cannot be calledupon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value
not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity
andcompetency of the extrajudicial source of her information.

Patula vs. People

Ms. Patula was charged with Estafa before the Regional Trial Court for allegedly misappropriating a
certain amount of money in her possession as sales woman of the business of the private
complainant. During the trial, only two witnesses were presented by the prosecution and the other
identified and presented several ledgers containing the alleged inconsistencies of the sales record of
the store where Patula worked. The defense lawyer interposed a continuous objection to the
testimony of the said witness on the ground that it was hearsay since the personnel who made the
entries on the ledger was not the one presented in court. After the prosecution rested its case the
defense no longer presented any evidence and submitted the case for decision. Ms. Patula was
convicted but filed a petition for review on certiorari directly to the Supreme Court alleging among
others, that the RTC erred in admitting the testimony of a witness which is hearsay.

Patula was Acquitted

The Supreme Court favored Ms. Patula and acquitted her and one of the reasons is the failure of the
prosecution to overcome the presumption of her innocence. Aside from other technicalities in the
case, the testimony of one of the witnesses upon which the RTC based its decision was indeed
hearsay since she was not the person who prepared the ledgers. The said testimony being hearsay,
should not have been admitted by the Trial Court. The Court went on to state the reason why such
statements cannot be admitted as evidence. “It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay
is not obliged to enter into any particular, to answer any question, to solve any difficulties, to
reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove any ambiguities; and that she
entrenches herself in the simple assertion that she was told so, and leaves the burden entirely upon
the dead or absent author. Thus, the rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that
there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The testimony may have been given under
oath and before a court of justice, but if it is offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to
cross-examine the witness, it is hearsay just the same.” (G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012). The High
Tribunal added: “We thus stress that the rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based upon serious
concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence due to its not being given
under oath or solemn affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-examination by the
opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and articulateness of the out-of-court
declarant or actor upon whose reliability the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.”
Herrera v. Alba
G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005

FACTS:

On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent), represented by his mother Armi
Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against
petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he
is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s
mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos,
Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she
taught Cell Biology. She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences
Research Institute (UP-NSRI), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former professor at the
University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she developed the Molecular Biology
Program and taught Molecular Biology. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA
paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing
paternity. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained
acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-
incrimination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DNA Paternity testing violates Herrera’s right against self-incrimination.

RULING:

No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA testing is not yet
recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the
prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002 there is already no question as to the
acceptability of DNA test results as admissible object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the
decisive ruling in the case of People vs Vallejo (2002).

It is also considered that the Vallejo Guidelines be considered by the courts. The Vallejo Guidelines
determines weight and probative value of DNA test results.

The Vallejo Guidelines:

1. how the samples were collected;

2. how they were handled;

3. the possibility of contamination of the samples;

4. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples;

5. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests; and

6. the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.