Evidence 92-98

GEPULLE- GARBO VS. SPS. GARABATO

G.R. NO. 200013; 14 JANUARY 2015

FACTS:

This case pertains to a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land, originally owned by Sps.
Eduviges and Nick Garbo. In March 1977, Eduviges, with the supposed consent and
signature of Nick, sold the property lot to their daughter, Florence. Thereafter,
Eduviges died and Nick remarried to now, petitioner. Florence registered the
property in her name and was issued TCT No. 126959. Then, she sold the lot to
respondent Sps. Garabato. Florence died on March 4, 1992 while Nick died on
February 28, 1996. Petitioner now assails the validity of the sale, alleging that the
sale between Eduviges and Florence was void because the signatures of Eduviges
and Nick were forgeries. To support her allegations, petitioner presented the report
and testimony of a document examiner of the NBI. But the RTC did not give
credence to the testimony of the expert witness, holding that the courts are not bound
by expert testimonies and that the relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony
is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON the expert’s testimony can should be given probative value.

RULING:
No. The opinion of handwriting experts is not necessarily binding upon the court,
the expert’s function being to place before the court data upon which the court can
form its opinion. This principle holds true especially when the question involved is
mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently
existing ones. Both the RTC and the CA found that the expert witness did not explain
the manner of the examination of the specimen signatures in reaching his
conclusions. He did not explain the distinguishing marks, characteristics and
discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would
ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DENNIS MANALIGOD
G.R. NO. 218584; 25 APRIL 2018

FACTS:

BBB asked her daughter, AAA, an eight (8) year old minor, to borrow a cellphone
charger at the videoke bar where she worked. When AAA came back, BBB saw that
AAA had 20.00 php in her possession. She asked AAA where it came from and the
latter answered that appellant gave it to her. BBB asked why appellant would give
her the money but AAA refused to answer because appellant told her not to tell
anyone. Upon further, questioning, AAA narrated that appellant took her to a room
at the videoke bar. Then he removed her clothes and underwear and then undressed
himself. Appellant then repeatedly inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina. Appellant
afterwards, told AAA not to tell her mother what had happened and gave her 20.00
php. Dr. Lorenzo performed the medical examination and found lacerations in
AAA’s vagina.

Appellant, through his counsel, manifested that he would not present evidence for
his defense. The RTC convicted him of statutory rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed
the conviction. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON AAA was a credible witness.

RULING:
Yes. The court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC’s assessment of AAA’s
credibility , which was affirmed by the CA. AAA narrated her tragic ordeal in the
hands of the accused- appellant in a clear, straightforward and convincing manner.
Her narration was likewise corroborated by Dr. Lorenzo’s medical findings as to the
existence of hymenal lacerations. When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent
with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis that there has been carnal
knowledge. Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of
defloration.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANUEL GAMBOA
G.R. NO. 233702; 20 JUNE 2018

FACTS:
During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Nieva asked appellant if he could buy 200 php
worth of shabu, handing as payment the buy- bust money. In turn appellant gave
PO2 Nieva a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Nieva
removed his bull cap, prompting the back-up officers to rush towards the scene and
arrest appellant. Subsequently, they recovered another plastic sachet and the buy-
bust money. PO2 Nieva immediately marked the two (2) plastic sachets and
inventoried the items at the place of arrest in the presence of appellant and a media
representative.

Photographs of the confiscated items were also taken by PO3 Benitez during the
marking and inventory, thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the seized drugs
to the police station where PO3 Benitez prepared the Request for Laboratory
Examination. The Forensic Chemist confirmed that the substance was positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Appellant denied the allegations,
claiming that three (3) unidentified men arrested him for vagrancy because of his
tattoos.

ISSUE:
WON the prescribed chain of custody was followed.

RULING:
No. The court found that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from
the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Gamboa. An examination of
the records reveals that while the seizes were properly marked by PO2 Nieva
immediately upon confiscation at the place of the arrest and in the presence of a
media representative, the same was not done in the presence of any elected public
official, as well as representative from the DOJ. This minor deviation may have been
excused if a justifiable reason for non- compliance was explained. However, no
plausible explanation was given by the prosecution.
ARNEL CALAHI, ET. AL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 195043; 20 NOVEMBER 2017

FACTS:
While serving the search warrant on a certain Elsie Valenzuela, the CIDG members
noticed an XLT jeep parked near Elsie’s house. Having suspicions, they approached
the jeep and saw four (4) persons holding a pot session inside. They noticed the
following items inside the vehicle: an aluminum foil, an improvised tooter, a lighter,
and remnants of shabu. SPO3 Padilla and his team immediately arrested the 4 who
were later identified as Enrique, Arnel, Nicolas and Nicasio confiscated the white
crystalline substance found with them. Then they were brought to the police station
in Cabanatuan City. Thereafter, SPO3 Padilla requested a laboratory examination on
the confiscated substance by the PNP Crime Laboratory. An information was then
charged against petitioners for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Petitioners posit that the integrity and identity of the seized items were tarnished
because the arresting officers failed to inventory and photograph the seized items in
petitioners’ presence.

ISSUE:
WON the chain of custody rule was observed.

RULING:
No. the chain of custody rule requires proof of every link in the chain from the
moment the item was seized to the time it is presented in court and offered into
evidence, such that the witnesses constituting the chain are able to testify on how it
was given and received, including the precautions taken to ensure that the seized
item was not tampered with.

After a careful examination of all the evidence on record, the court finds that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the shabu by the requisite proof.
Notably, the records are bereft of any showing that the seized items were marked
upon seizure. SPO3 Padilla, who requested the examination of the seized items by
the crime laboratory, did not indicate that the apprehending team marked the items
immediately.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENEDICTO VEEDOR JR.
G.R. NO. 223525, 25 JUNE 2018

FACTS:
A team of operatives from the NBI served a search warrant on appellant at the latter’s
house. After explaining the nature of the search warrant, the NBI agents searched
the house and found a shopping bag containing suspected marijuana inside a cabinet.
They also found 323 small plastic sachets of suspected marijuana in seven
transparent plastic bags. SI Escurel marked the seized items with his initials and
prepared the inventory of seized property. On the same day, he turned over the seized
items to the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI.

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II f RA 165. The CA affirmed the
decision in toto. Aggrieved, appellant filed this petition.

ISSUE:
WON the chain of custody rule was observed.

RULING:
No. The prosecution failed to establish the first link in the chain of custody for failure
of the NBI agents to properly conduct the inventory and marking of the seized items.
Another significant point to consider is the prosecution’s failure to a) submit the
original or the duplicate copy of the Inventory of seized property dated 2 September
2004hich led the court to exclude from the evidence the photocopy thereof; and b)
include the photographs taken of appellant and the seized items in its formal offer of
evidence dated 5 September 2007.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MAXIMO DELA PENA ET. AL.
G.R. NO. 219581; 31 JANUARY 2018

FACTS:
Appellant was charged with the crime of piracy defined under P.D. No. 532. He
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. His co- accused, Romy Real, Danny Real,
and Onyong Reyes have not been arrested and remain fugitives from justice. The
RTC found appellant guilty holding that appellant’s denial and alibi could not prevail
over the positive identification made by the victims. On appeal, the CA affirmed
appellant’s conviction. Dissatisfied with the CA’s decision and after denial of his
Motion for Reconsideration, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE:
WON appellant was positively identified by the prosecution’s witnesses.

RULING:
Yes. The Court finds no merit in appellant’s contention that he was not positively
identified by the prosecution’s witnesses. From the testimony of Julita, she
positively identified appellant as one of the assailants who boarded their vessel and
seized its cargo, equipment and the passengers’ belongings. Julita testified that she
was able to identify appellant because of the moonlight that illuminated the area.
Further, she testified that she has a flashlight that allowed her to see who boarded
the vessel. More importantly, Julita had known appellant for 16 years since they
reside in the same barangay.

Appellant’s bare denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification made
by Julita. Time and again, the Court has consistently ruled that positive identification
prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently
unreliable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ERLINDA SISON
G.R. NO. 187160; 9 AUGUST 2017

FACTS:
Complainant and a companion met appellant and the latter offered to help them land
on a job as fruit pickers in Australia. Through appellant’s representations,
complainant was convinced to part with his money hoping that appellant would be
able to give him an Australian visa. However, appellant failed to secure one for him.
Appellant thus convinced him to go to Malaysia and obtain an Australian visa from
there as it would be easier to secure one from Malaysia. Still, despite going to
Malaysia, no Australian visa was secured for complainant. Even when complainant
was convinced to go to Indonesia and just obtain a US visa instead, complainant was
unable to obtain one. Instead he received an Indonesian passport bearing an
Indonesian name. Complainant also learned that their stay in Indonesia was illegal.
This prompted him to seek help from the Philippine consulate in order to return to
the Philippines. Upon returning to the Philippines, he filed a case of illegal
recruitment against appellant and her companion.

Appellant denied the allegations and claimed that she was also a victim. However,
the RTC gave more credence to the prosecution’s version and convicted appellant.
The CA upheld the conviction. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON appellant’s defense denial would hold water.

RULING:
No. The Court correctly rejected Sison’s claim that she was also a victim of illegal
recruitment. The courts do not look favorably at denial as a defense since denial,
same as alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and
self- serving evidence of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and always
received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also
because it is easily fabricated and concocted. Denial does not prevail over an
affirmative assertion of the fact. Sison’s denial is merely an attempt to avoid liability.
l