CONCEPCION M. CATUIRA vs.

CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 105813 September 12, 1994

FACTS: Two informations for estafa were filed against petitioner. After the prosecution had
presented its evidence, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the testimony of private
respondent was inadmissible in evidence since it was not properly introduced when she was called
to testify as mandated in Sec. 35, Rule 132, of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of a witness inadmissible in evidence as required in Sec. 35, in
relation to Sec. 34, Rule 132, of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

RULING: No. The reason for requiring that evidence be formally introduced is to enable the court to
rule intelligently upon the objection to the questions which have been asked. As a general rule, the
proponent must show its relevancy, materiality and competency. Where the proponent offers
evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has
the right to object. But such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. While it is true that the
prosecution failed to offer in evidence the testimony of the complaining witness upon calling her to
testify and that it was only after her testimony and after the petitioner moved that it be stricken
that the offer was made, the respondent Court did not gravely err in not dismissing the case against
the petitioner on the ground invoked. For, she should have objected to the testimony of the
complaining witness when it was not first offered upon calling her and should not have waited in
ambush after she had already finished testifying. By so doing she did not save the time of the Court
in hearing the testimony of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible. And for her
failure to make known her objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was waived.
If petitioner was genuinely concerned with the ends of justice being served, her actuations should
have been otherwise. Instead, she attempted to capitalize on a mere technicality to have the estafa
case against her dismissed. The unoffered oral evidence must be admitted if only to satisfy the
court's sense of justice and fairness and to stress that substantial justice may not be denied merely
on the ground of technicality.

SPOUSES RAMON and FELICISIMA DIOSO vs. SPOUSES TOMAS and LEONORA CARDEÑO

G.R. No. 150155 September 1, 2004

FACTS: Petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance and/or easement of right of way with
damages and prayed that the respondents be directed to comply with or perform their obligation
under the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and grant the petitioners a right of way, and to pay them
damages. The respondents specifically denied the genuineness and due execution of the
Pinanumpaang Salaysay, alleging that it was falsified. The trial court held that the petitioners’
evidence did not support their claim and noted that the petitioners presented only a photocopy or
machine copy of the purported document, and, during the trial, failed to lay the foundation or
prepare the basis for the admission of secondary evidence to prove the contents thereof.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were able to establish the existence of the Pinanumpaang
Salaysay by secondary evidence

RULING: Yes. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, indeed, provides that when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as Section 5 thereof further states that
“When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith
on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated." Admittedly, in this case, the
original document of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay was not presented during trial. However, the
petitioners presented a photocopy thereof, as well as testimonial evidence to prove its due
execution and the loss or unavailability of the original document. Specifically, the existence and due
execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay was established. Clearly then, since there was proof of the
due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, and that, despite earnest efforts on their part, the
petitioners could not produce the original thereof, the presentation of secondary evidence to prove
the contents of the said document was justified. Furthermore, contrary to the trial court’s findings,
the petitioners had sufficiently laid down the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence.

LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS vs. THE HEIRS OFTHE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR.

G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013

FACTS: Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming exclusive
ownership of the subject lot. Respondents based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer of Real
Property where Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr. Believing that the affidavit is a
forgery, the sisters requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit. The PNP handwriting
expert PO2 Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.’s signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard
signatures of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person. Thus, the sisters sued the
respondents for annulment of the deed of donation. After the pre-trial, respondents moved to
disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness. They argued that the RTC did not authorize the handwriting
examination of the affidavit. They added that presenting PO2 Alvarez as a witness will violate their
constitutional right to due process since no notice was given to them before the examination was
conducted. Thus, PO2 Alvarez’s report is a worthless piece of paper and her testimony would be
useless and irrelevant.

ISSUE: Whether or not PO2 Alvarez should be disqualified as a witness.

RULING: No. Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence. Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage. Section 23 disqualifies a
witness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party. Section 24 disqualifies a witness by
reason of privileged communication. It was held that the specific enumeration of disqualified
witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules.
The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein. As a
handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known her perception to
others. We have no doubt that she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness
since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the Rules. Respondents’ motion to
disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC for it was not based on any of these grounds for
disqualification. The RTC rather confused the qualification of the witness with the credibility and
weight of her testimony. In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NOEL LEE

G.R. No. 139070 May 29, 2002

FACTS: The accused-appellant was convicted of the crime murder. On appel, accused-appellant
makes capital of victim’s bad reputation in their community. As proof, he presented the letter of the
victim’s mother to Mayor Malonzo seeking his assistance for Joseph’s rehabilitation from drugs.
ISSUE: Whether or not victim’s bad reputation is admissible as evidence.

RULING: No. The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant
in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. There are
exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and
civil cases. In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1 of Section 51 of Rule 130 provides that the accused
may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged. When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the
presumption of innocence, and where good character and reputation are established, an inference
arises that the accused did not commit the crime charged. In the instant case, proof of the bad moral
character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing.
There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the
hands of accused-appellant. The accused-appellant is charged with murder committed through
treachery and evident premeditation. Joseph was sitting in his living room watching television
when accused-appellant peeped through the window and, without any warning, shot him twice in
the head. There was no opportunity at all for the victim to defend himself or retaliate against his
attacker. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack ensured his death without risk to the
assailant.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALVIN ESUGON y AVILA

G.R. No. 195244 June 22, 2015

FACTS: The appellant argued that the court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the composite crime of robbery with homicide based solely on the testimony of Carl, a 5-year old
witness whose recollections could only be the product of his imagination.

ISSUE: Whether or not the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery with
homicide was credible and competent considering that the identifying witness was Carl, a 5-year
old lad.

RULING: Yes. Section 21, Rule 130 provides: “The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those
whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;(b) Children whose mental
maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.” As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a
relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to
others can be a witness. The qualification of a person to testify rests on the ability to relate to others
the acts and events witnessed. That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for
disqualification. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, every child is now presumed
qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging the child’s competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the
child will the court conduct a competency examination of a child. Consequently, the trial judge
favorably determined the competency of Carl to testify against the appellant.