1. Accused is charged of murder. The Judge issued a warrant of arrest
without bail. Accused filed a motion for bail alleging that evidence against
him is not strong. The bail hearing was conducted, and Elizabeth was offered as
witness. The bail was not granted on the basis of her testimony. In the trial
proper, Elizabeth was presented as principal witness. Due to lack of material
time, and in giving the defense ample time to cross-examine Elizabeth, the
trial was set on another date for the cross-examination.
Before the
cross-examination could be conducted, Elizabeth died of cardiac arrest.
The defense
moved that the testimony of Elizabeth be expunged for lack of
cross-examination.
On the other
hand, the prosecution moved that the testimony of Elizabeth during the bail
hearing be adopted as part of her main testimony.
As judge how
would you rule on the two motions.
2. The accused was caught in flagrante sniffing shabu inside a beach
cottage in a resort. He was arrested by the police officers P01 Redoble and P02
Rosete,, accosted by Huling, the caretaker of the cottage, and Romel, the
errand boy of the resort.
In convicting
the accused, the Judge relied on the testimony of P01 Redoble, since Huling and
Romel were not presented as witnesses for the prosecution.
On appeal the
accused assigned as one of the errors the non-presentation of PO1 Rosete,
Huling and Romel, claiming that the prosecution willfully suppressed other
evidence which gives the presumption that the same is adverse to the
prosecution, and could have resulted to his acquittal on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
Rule on said
assigned error.
3. Arriving
home one late afternoon of April 4, 1987, Amador Organez was informed by his
wife that their six (6) year old daughter, Maritess, was missing. Upon inquiry,
Cristy Manalastas, one of his neighbors, told Amador that a pregnant woman was
seen near the vicinity of his house. This was corroborated by two other
neighbors, namely, Julie and Baby Wycoco. Amador searched for the pregnant
woman at Tondo. She chanced upon Shirley Martinez whose child was also missing.
Shirley related to Amador that, after one, Zenaida Isla, who was her former
classmate, visited her at her house, her child disappeared. Amador, continued
his search in Caloocan and met Lola Danding whose grandchild was also missing.
She told Amador that it was appellant who took her granddaughter when the
latter went to her house.
On
July 18, 1987, the police authorities from Malabon went to Amador’s house and
informed him that appellant had been arrested. Amador then went to the Malabon
Police Headquarters where appellant told him to proceed to San Simon, Pampanga
to fetch his child. On that same day, Amador went to Pampanga together with six
Malabon policemen, Lola Danding, appellant, and Mrs. Loring whose child was
also missing. After coordinating with the police authorities of Pampanga, they
proceeded to the town of Sta. Monica, to meet Maura “Orang” Mabalot.
Upon reaching the house of Maura, the
police authorities showed her a picture of Maritess and she identified the
child in the picture as the same child who was with appellant when the latter
went to her house in April, 1987. She also related that during the said visit,
appellant told her that she was looking for someone to adopt the child known as
Maritess. Appellant, upon hearing Maura’s statement reacted by telling the
group that she sold the child at Angeles City. Thereafter, the same group went
to a dry goods store at the Angeles City Market. The owner of the said store
answered positively when the policemen inquired if a child was sold to her but,
upon verification, the child was not Maritess. Then the group checked on another
child, who was sold but again upon verification, did not turn out to be
Maritess.
Subsequently,
appellant was brought back to the Malabon Police Department but was transferred
to the Western Police District of Manila. On July 21, 1987, appellant was investigated
before P/Cpl. Pablito Marasigan, an investigator at the WPD General Assignment
Section. Thereafter, she executed an extrajudicial statement wherein she
admitted that she took Maritess Organez and brought her to Teofilo Ablaza for
adoption. Said extrajudicial statement was executed with Atty. Domingo Joaquin
of the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), Department of Justice, beside
her.
Appellant
on the other hand, denied the charges hurled against her. She claimed that she
has no knowledge of the contents of the sworn statement attributed to her which
is marked as Exhibit “B” nor had she read it. She alleged that she was lured
into signing the said document when Marasigan promised to release her after
affixing her signature thereat. More so, she alleged that when she affixed her
signature in the document, she was not assisted by a counsel as Atty. Domingo
Joaquin of CLAO arrived at the police station after the document was already
prepared and finished.
In this appeal, appellant interposes the
following as errors of the court a quo:
“The trial court gravely erred in
finding the accused guilty of kidnapping, inasmuch as:
1. The decision was basically based on
hearsay evidence;
2. The alleged extra-judicial
confession is inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused(sic).”
Rule on the assigned errors on the
basis of PP. V. Isla, GR 96176, Aug. 21, 1997).
4. In a case for property heirship, the alleged niece testified
about her ‘being a niece” to the decedent. She testified that allegedly, her
deceased childless Aunt, the owner of the property in questions, since her
lifetime had always declared her as her niece, who would be capacitated to
inherit her property.
The adverse party claims
that it is hearsay evidence, and hence inadmissible.
The Judge sustained the
objection. Is the Judge Correct?
5.In a rape case, the following witnesses testified as follows:
Witness Lucela
testified that she saw the victim a retardate, who went voluntarily with the
accused in the bushes, where the accused had sex with her. The accused removed
his pants, sat on the grasses where the victim sat on top of him. Her affidavit
beforehand submitted did not mention of said fact.
Witness
Rosario, an Aunt of the retardate, testified that the accused after the
incident left their place, and even wrote a letter asking for forgiveness.
The retardate
testified and pointed to the accused as the person who had sex with her in the
bushes.
The trial court
convicted the accused on the basis of said testimonies.
On appeal, the
accused assigned the following errors:
(1) The testimony of the retardate is inadmissible and should not have
been believed.
2) That his
asking for forgiveness and his leaving the place are irrelevant matters and
should not have been considered by the court.
3) The
testimony of Lucela should have been discredited as it did not jibe with her
affidavit.
Rule on the
three assigned errors.
6. Do
you agree with the ruling of the judge when he decided that ” Neither do the
tax receipts which were presented in evidence prove ownership of the parcels of
land inasmuch as the weight of authority is that tax declarations are not
conclusive proof of ownership in land registration cases”
? Why? What is the correct rule with respect to tax declarations used as
evidence to prove ownership of land?
7. In a criminal case for murder, the
prosecution presented as evidence the pictures of the reenactment depicting the
participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. The accused
objected saying that said evidence is inadmissible as evidence, as he was not
assisted by counsel when the reenactment was done. The prosecution objected
saying that the reenactment was voluntarily done by the accused before he was
charged, and the pictures were taken thereon without any objection from him.
The Judge ruled that said pictures are
admissible as evidence and that they are not covered by the right against
self-incrimination.
Rule of the contentions of the parties.
Is the judge correct?
8. On May 21, 1982, petitioner Dumez Company, a French
company, through petitioner Trans-Orient Engineers, Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, engaged the services
of private respondent Veronico Ebilane as carpenter for one of its projects in
the Middle East, with Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as his place of actual employment.
The parties executed and signed a one-year overseas employment agreement
embodying the terms and conditions of private respondent's employment.
Private
respondent commenced performance of said contract on July 3, 1982. On August
31, 1982, while at the job site, private respondent was suddenly seized by
abdominal pain and rushed to the Riyadh Central Hospital were appendectomy was
performed on him. During his confinement, he developed right-sided weakness and
numbness and difficulty of speaking which was found to have been caused by
Atrial Fibrillation and CVA embolism.
In a letter
dated September 22, 1982, petitioners formally terminated private respondent's
employment effective September 29, 1982, up to which time petitioners paid
private respondent his salaries under his employment contract. Thereafter, on
October 13, 1982, private respondent was repatriated to Manila.
On November 23,
1982, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioners. Such complaint was filed with the Workers' Assistance and
Adjudication Office of the POEA.
In
deciding the case in favor of respondent, the POEA took judicial notice of
Social Insurance Law of Saudi Arabia.
Question:
is the POEA correct in taking judicial notice of the Social Insurance Law of
Saudi Arabia, which was not duly proved during the hearing? Explain.
9.
Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. In 1932, as a nine-year
old boy, he arrived at the port of Manila on board the vessel
"Angking." Since then, he has stayed in the Philippines where he
found employment and eventually started his own business, married a Filipina,
with whom he had four children. On July 4, 1989, at the age of 66, he filed a
verified petition to be admitted as a Filipino citizen under C.A. No. 473,
otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. Petitioner,
after stating his qualifications as required in §2, and lack of the
disqualifications enumerated in §3 of the law, stated —
17. That he
has heretofore made (a) petition for citizenship under the provisions of Letter
of Instruction No. 270 with the Special Committee on Naturalization, Office of
the Solicitor General, Manila, docketed as SCN Case No. 031776, but the same
was not acted upon owing to the fact that the said Special Committee on
Naturalization was not reconstituted after the February, 1986 revolution such
that processing of petitions for naturalization by administrative process was
suspended;
During the hearings, petitioner
testified as to his qualifications and presented three witnesses to corroborate
his testimony. So impressed was Prosecutor Isaac Alvero V. Moran with the
testimony of petitioner that, upon being asked by the court whether the State
intended to present any witness present any witness against him, he remarked:
Actually, Your Honor, with the
testimony of the petitioner himself which is rather surprising, in the sense
that he seems to be well-versed with the major portion of the history of the
Philippines, so, on our part, we are convinced, Your Honor Please, that
petitioner really deserves to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. And
for this reason, we do not wish to present any evidence to counteract or refute
the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner, as well as the petitioner
himself. 3
Accordingly, on August 25, 1999, the
trial court granted the petition and admitted petitioner to Philippine
citizenship. The State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
appealed all the names by which he is or had been known; (2) failed to state
all his former placer of residence in violation of C.A. No. 473, §7; (3) failed
to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay
in the Philippines, in violation of §2; (4) has no known lucrative trade or
occupation and his previous incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared, also
in contravention of §2; and (5) failed to support his petition with the
appropriate documentary evidence. 4
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, and appreciated the
documents annexed to the records but which were not offered by the Solicitor
General.
The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court assigning as error: that the appellate court erred in
considering the documents which had merely been annexed by the State to its
appellant's brief and, on the basis of which, justified the reversal of the
trial court's decision. Not having been presented and formally offered as
evidence, they are mere "scrap(s) of paper devoid of any evidentiary
value," 12 so it was argued, because under Rule 132, §34 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered.
Rule on the assigned error: was it
correct for the CA to appreciate evidence not formally offered?
10.(
Bordalba v. CA, Jan. 25, 2002)In a complaint to nullify the
issuance of a Free Patent and the
certificate of Title derived from it, complainants presented an extra-judicial
partition executed in 1947.The purpose of complainant was to show that the land
covered by the Free Patent is not an exclusive property of defendant but was
previously partitioned among their predecessors in interest. They thus
presented witnesses to attest to the 1947 extra-judicial partition.
Questions: Are said witnesses barred by
the Dead Man’s Statute from testifying considering that the parties to the
document are all deceased? Explain your
answer.
