INSTRUCTION: Please answer the 20 questions below.Submit your answers in my email ad: emma_bastasa2000@yahoo.com
1.In a case for annulment of marriage
filed by the husband on the ground that the wife was suffering from a mental
illness called schizophrenia, plaintiff sought to present the psychiatrist from
the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness. Defendant
objected on the ground that the testimony sought to be presented is privileged
since the psychiatrist examined the patient in a professional capacity. The
trial court allowed her to testify as an expert witness and she was asked
hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed
the illness she examined and treated defendant for nor disclosed the results of
her examination and the medicine she had prescribed.
Issue:
Issue:
In the testimony barred by
Sec. 24(c) , Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidences?
2.Atty.
Sansaet was counsel for Paredes in a complaint undergoing preliminary
investigation before the Tanodbayan for violation of RA No. 3019. The complaint
was, however, dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy based on their claim
that Paredes was previously charged of the same offense which was dismissed
after arraignment. It turned out, however, that this claim of double jeopardy
was based on falsified documents, so that both Paredes and Sansaet were charged
of falsification. As his defense, Atty. Sansaet claimed that it was Paredes who
falsified the documents in his house and instigated and induced him to file the
motion using the falsified documents. Atty. Sansaet offered to become state
witness against Paredes.
Issue:
Would the proposed testimony of Atty. Sansaet violate the attorney-client privilege?
Would the proposed testimony of Atty. Sansaet violate the attorney-client privilege?
3. Sometime in 1959 a number of residents of Guiguinto,
Bulacan, sent a letter-complaint to the Highway District Engineer of that
province asking that the Sapang Cabay, a public navigable stream, which had
been blocked by means of dikes and dams and converted into fishponds, be
ordered reopened and restored to its original condition. The letter was
referred to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, who caused an
investigation to be conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 2056. Acting on the
report which the investigator submitted to him, the Secretary rendered his
decision on August 10, 1959, finding that the Sapang Cabay was a public
navigable stream and ordering Cenon Mateo, the herein petitioner-appellant, who
had in the meantime acquired the property inside which the said creek is
situated, to remove the dikes and dams therein constructed within thirty days
from notice; otherwise they would be removed at his expense. Mateo moved to
reconsider but was turned down, whereupon he filed the basic petition to
restrain the respondent Secretary from enforcing his decision. The petition, as
already stated, was dismissed by the Court a quo.
They pose the argument that when the
question at issue is whether or not a certain body of water is private property
or constitutes a navigable stream or river of the public domain, the same is
essentially judicial and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications to inquire into and decide; and that insofar as
Republic Act No. 2056 purports to confer that power upon him it does so in
violation of the Constitution.
In the memorandum filed by the
petitioner-appellant after Lovina vs. Moreno was decided, he submits that all
but one of the issues he raised have been settled by that decision, and that
the only issue which remains is the applicability of Republic Act No. 2056 in
the instant case. He concedes the authority of the Secretary to decide, after
hearing, whether or not a river or creek is navigable and therefore belongs to
the public domain; whether or not the dikes and dams complained against
encroach upon or obstruct such navigable river or creek, or communal fishing
grounds; and whether or not the dikes and dams constitute public nuisance or
prohibited constructions. The plea, however, is that in the light of the facts
established at the investigation ordered by the respondent Secretary his
conclusion that Sapang Cabay is a public navigable creek constitutes a grave
abuse of discretion.
Issue:
Whether or not substantial evidence
rule applies.
4. Accused-petitioner was the Collecting and Disbursing
Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School, which school is also
located at del Carmen, Surigao del Norte. His duties included the collection of
tuition fees, preparation of vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees,
and remittance of collections exceeding P500.00 to the National Treasury.
An
information charging petitioner with having violated Article 217, paragraph 4,
of the Revised Penal
Code, was filed with the then Court of First Instance
("CFI") of Surigao del Norte (docketed Criminal Case No. 299)
Which the accused-petitioner failed to
audit in the amount of SIXTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE PESOS and
SIXTY-TWO CENTAVOS (P16,483.62) and and failed as well to restitute despite
demands by the office of the Provincial Auditor, to the damage and prejudice of
the Government equal to the amount misappropriated.
A
warrant of arrest was issued, but accused-petitioner could not be found. On 10
December 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1606 took effect creating the
Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over
crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal
Code. On 15 November 1984, Navallo was finally arrested. He was released on
provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond. When arraigned
by the RTC, he pleaded not guilty. Upon motion of the prosecution, the RTC
transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. Special
Prosecutor Luz L. Quiñones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already been
arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan, the RTC should
continue taking cognizance of the case. The matter was referred to the Office
of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. The information was then docketed with
the Sandiganbayan. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the
Sandiganbayan. The warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk
of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond.
Navallo
filed a motion to quash, contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over the offense and the person of the accused and (2) that since
the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC, the attempt to prosecute him
before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. However this was
denied and trial ensued and he was found guilty.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-petitioner
is guilty of malversation.
5. On the 26th
day of July, 1985, while Robert Te was maneuvering the cargo truck to get the
truck from the mud he was shot by Fortunato Pamon and the later died instantly.
Thereafter, the truck was burned by another man, and then gunman escaped and
boarded the last truck which was the one owned by Gerson Dulang. Pamon was
arrested was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest for a murder charge
against him in the RTC of Tangub City and was detained at the PC stockade at
Camp Hamac, Sicayab, Zamboanga del Norte. The accused-appellant, in the
presence of Atty. Rubencio Ligorio of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office
(CLAO), executed before Pfc. Roland Salatandre of the CIS a Confession marked
as Exhibit "A". He admitted that he shot and killed Robert Te.
Furthermore, he implicated John Doe, alias "Dodo", Gerson Dulang, and
Inocencio Feras. This extrajudicial confession was subscribed and sworn to
before Judge Vicente Aseniero and reaffirmed his confession during the
preliminary investigation of the case.
An information was filed for murder
was filed against Fortunato Pamon, as principal by direct participation,
Inocencio Feras and Gerson Dulang as principals by inducemet, and John Doe,
alias "Dodo" as accomplice. When Inocencio Feras died during the
course of the trial, the information was amended by dropping Feras' name and
substituting the name of Gerson Dulang. The defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimony of Gerson Dulang who professed ignorance of the crime;
of Raul Curativo, a neighbor of Fortunato Pamon, who described the killer as
"short, dark in complexion, with curly hair and was bearded",
and who said that Fortunato
Pamon was not the killer; of Jaime Gilbero, who said that at the time of the
killing, Fortunato Pamon was plowing his field; and of Fortunato Pamon himself
who denied the killing and retracted his extrajudicial confession. His
affidavit of retraction, dated April 23, 1987, is attached as Annex
"B" of Appellant's Brief. He alleged therein that
the confession was involuntary on his part as it resulted from torture and
coercion. This affidavit was, however, not offered in the trial court as an
exhibit. Fortunato Pamon and Gerson Dulang made separate assignments of errors.
Fortunato Pamon avers that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of
his arrest and the voluntariness and admissibility of his extrajudicial Confession,
and in not considering the testimony of a witness, Raul Curativo, that
Fortunato Pamon was not the killer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the extrajudicial
confession made by the accused-appellant is admissible as evidence against him
and co-accused Gerson Dulang.
6. Accused-appellant
Henry Ponseca y Soriano appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City, Branch 131, convicting him and his four co-accused namely: Alex de Guzman y Magat, Agustin Ladao y
Loreto, Henry Ponseca y Soriano, Antonio Panganiban y Aquino and Victorio
Eugenio y Roque, of the crime of robbery with homicide conspiring together and
mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of force and
violence employed upon the person of ALFONSO DELA CRUZ Y QUIAMBAO, that is, by
tying the latter’s both hands and feet and subsequently dumping his body at the
estero in Tanigue St., Dagat-Dagatan, this city, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away undetermined amount,
belonging to the said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in
undetermined amount; and as a result of aforesaid force and violence employed
to said victim, the latter drowned at the estero which incident directly caused
his death.
In the ensuing investigation
conducted by Police Inspector Antonio Paras and Ricardo Concepcion,
accused-appellant and his co-accused executed, with the assistance of Atty.
Juanito R. Crisostomo of the Public Attorney’s Office, Caloocan City, their
extra-judicial confession admitting authorship of the crime of robbery with
homicide.
For his defense, accused-appellant
testified that on February 9, 1990, while he was in an eatery in Caloocan, he
was arrested by armed Caloocan policemen. Prior to his arrest,
accused-appellant declared that he did not know his four co-accused. He denied participation in the commission of
the crime and claimed that he was tortured and forced to sign an extra-judicial
confession. Accused-appellant insisted that he does not know Atty. Juanito
Crisostomo and that he was never assisted by him during the custodial
investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not extra-judicial
confession made is admissible in evidence.
7. Accused Nicomedes Fabro, Francisco Dimalanta, Amado Alcala,
William Hoge, and “John Doe” were charged for murdering one Dionisio Joaquin
with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and
reward. Fabro was the gunman and Dimalanta and Alcala who participated in the
killing were his co-conspirators.
During
interrogation, CIS investigator Santiago requested Fabro to sign a document,
which turned out to be his extra-judicial confession/admission (Exh. “F”). Accused Fabro
(claims that he) was not allowed to read the document, neither were its
contents read to him. A certain Atty.
Isagani Jungco was however present when he signed the document.
The confession of Dimalanta
coincided in all material points with the confession of Fabro. Dimalanta narrated how he was promised the
amount P10,000 by a certain Bill Hoge and how he was paid of P5,000.00
as initial payment and the balance to be paid after the killing is
accomplished. The P5,000.00
initial payment was shared by the three accused.” From the foregoing, the trial
court established the existence of conspiracy among the three accused. The trial court further found the testimony
of Beck unbiased, truthful and credible.
Issues:
1.
Whether
or not the confession made by the appellant is admissible
2.
Whether
or not Positive identification has more probative value than the defense of
Alibi in this case at bar.
8. On July
1947, Joi Jong sold a parcel of land to private respondent Soledad Parian,
the wife of Ong Yee, who died in January 1983. The said sale was evidenced by a
notarized Deed of Sale written in English. Subsequently, the document was
registered with the RD of Manila, which issued a TCT dated September 2, 1947 in
the name of private respondent Parian.
According to private respondent, she
entrusted the administration of the lot and building to the brother of her
husband, petitioner Ong Ching Po when the spouses settled in Iloilo. When her
husband died, she demanded that the lot be vacated because she was going to
sell it. Unfortunately, petitioners refused to vacate the said premises.
On March 19, 1984, Parian filed a
case for unlawful detainer against petitioner Ong Ching Po before the MTC of
Manila. The inferior court dismissed her case, and so did the RTC, Manila and
the CA, the CA decision final and executory.
Petitioners, on the other hand,
claimed that on July 23, 1946, petitioner Ong Ching Po bought the
said parcel of land from Joi Jong. The sale was evidenced by a photo copy of a
Deed of Sale written in Chinese. An English translation of said document read
as follows:
Deed of Sale
I, Ong Joi Jong, a party to this
Deed of Sale hereby sell in absolutely (sic) manner a lot located on No. 4
Fundidor Street, San Nicolas an (sic) area consisting 213 square meters
including a one-story house erected thereon unto Mr. Ong Ching Po for the sum
of P6,000.00 the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by me and consequently
I have executed and signed the government registered title (sic) the said lot
inclusive of the house erected thereon, now belong (sic) to Mr. Ong Ching Po
unequivocally. And the purpose of this document is to precisely serve as proof
of the sale.
Addendum: I have acceded to the
request of Mr. Ong Ching Po into signing another document in favor of
Soledad Parian (She is the Filipino wife of Ong Yee, brother of Ong
Ching Po) for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of the new title by
the City Register of Deeds and for the reason that he is not yet a Filipino. I
certify to the truthfulness of this fact.
Lot Seller: Ong Joi Jong
On Dec. 6, 1983, petitioner Ong
Ching Po executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to his children,
petitioners Jimmy and David Ong, the same property sold by Joi Jong to private
respondent Parian in 1947.
On Dec. 12 1985, petitioners Ong
Ching Po, Jimmy and David filed an action for reconveyance and damages against
private respondent in the RTC, Manila.
On July 26, 1986, private respondent
Parian filed an action for quieting of title against petitioners Ong
Ching Po and his wife, petitioner Yu Siok Lian, in the RTC, Manila. Upon her
motion, the case was consolidated with the earlier civil case. (petitioner Ong
Ching Po died in October 1986.)
On May 30 1990, the trial court
rendered a decision in favor of private respondent.
On appeal by petitioners to the CA,
the said court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
According to petitioners, the
CA erred:
(1) When it gave full faith and
credit to the Deed of Sale (Exh. A) in favor of private respondent, instead of
the Deed of Sale (Exh, B) in favor of petitioner Ong Ching Po.
(2) When it concluded that the acts
of petitioners were not acts of ownership; and
(3) When it ruled that no express
nor implied trust existed between petitioners and private respondent (as stated
in Exh. B)
9. In
this case the accused-appellant RizalinoFundano seeks to reverse the 1996
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. Rizalino was charged with this crime
that he had committed towards Melody Fundano, his 15-year old daughter with his
common-law wife Maria Fundano.
It was alleged in the complaints filed by Melody and her
mother that she was first raped by Rizalino on the night of September 10, 1993.
Melody was again raped by Rizalino on the next two succeeding nights. However,
Melody was only able to reveal about her ordeal on October 26, 1993 because she
was afraid and ashamed of what had happened.On November 11, 1993, Melody,
accompanied by her mother Maria and her sister-in-law Lucita, went to the NBI
and accomplished a complaint sheet, executed a sworn statement, and submitted
herself to a medical examination.
Dr. Rolando Victoria, who examined Melody, found no
extra-genital physical injuries norhymenal lacerations, and while her hymen was
intact, it admitted a 2.8-centimeter diameter tube without producing any
injury. Dr. Victoria thus concluded that MELODY's hymenal orifice could admit
an adult male organ in full erection without suffering injury, and that it was
possible she engaged in sexual engaged in sexual intercourse.
The trial court found Rizalinoquilty
of rape. It gave full faith & credit to Melody's
testimony who declared in court, "in a straight forward and categorical
manner," and exhibited no ulterior motive which "could have removed
the sense of modesty and shame in a 15-year old girl and impelled her to
concoct a story that would certainly bring ignominy, dishonor and humiliation
to her and her family." Also, the trial court found unworthy the credence
of Rizalino’sdefense of alibi, which was belied by the witnesses for the
prosecution.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not the victim
Melody is a credible witness given that the accused alleged that she has an ill
motive in blaming her father for the crime.
2.
Whether or not the defendant
Rizalino may question the expertise and credibility of Dr. Rolando Victorio as
an expert witness in the case.
3.
Whether or not the Trial Court
erred in disregarding the surrebuttal testimony of the defense.
10. The petitioner
prays for a writ of mandamus to
compel the respondent judge to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D (attached to the
petition), as evidence for the prosecution in criminal cases Nos. 4501 and 4502
of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga
filed two informations for libel against Andres Guevarra. The informations
alleged that the defendant, with malicious intent, published on page 9 of the
weekly paper IngMagumasidin its
issue of July 13, 1930, a squib in verse, of which a translation into Spanish
was included therein, intended to impeach the honesty, integrity, and
reputation of Clemente Dayrit (information in criminal cause No. 4501) and of
Mariano Nepomuceno (information in criminal cause No. 4502).
The defendant demurred on the ground
of duplicity of informations, he having published only one libelous article in
the IngMagumasidfor July 13,
1930. The court overruled the demurrer.
A joint trial was held of criminal
cases Nos. 4501 and 4502. The fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the
prosecution, the aforementioned Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of
the IngMagumasidcontaining the
libelous article with the innuendo, another article in the vernacular published
in the same weekly, and its translation into Spanish. Counsel for the defendant
objected to this evidence, which objection was sustained by the court.
The respondents answered the petition
for mandamus, praying for its dismissal with costs against the petitioner.
At the hearing of this case, both
parties appeared and moved that they be allowed to present memoranda in lieu of
an oral argument, which memoranda are in the record.
The petitioner contends that the
exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel, the subject matter of
the information, and should therefore be admitted; while the respondents
maintain that, inasmuch as the libelous articles were not quoted in the
information, said evidence cannot be admitted without amending the information.
The prosecution asked for an amendment to the information, but the court denied
the petition on the ground that it would impair the rights of the defendant,
holding that the omission of the libelous article in the original was fatal to
the prosecution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not The aforementioned
exhibits are admissible as evidence.
11. Gomer Climaco
was caught during the buy-bust operation. During the buy-bust, two plastic
sachets were turned over to SPO4 Teofilo Royena, one was the product of the buy
bust marked TR-B, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter "B" means
"Bust." While the other one recovered from Gomer Climaco by SPO3
Samson was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter "R"
means "Recovered". Climaco was charged with illegal possession and
illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. During trial,
PO1 Ignacio testified against Climaco and the following documentary exhibits
were offered for the prosecution: (1) Exhibit "A" – Letter dated 7
September 2004; (2) Exhibit "B" – Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04; (3)
Exhibit "C" – One-half white envelope; (4) Exhibit "C-1" –
Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings "GSC-1";
(5) Exhibit "C-2" – Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance
with markings "GSC-2"; and (6) Exhibit "D" – Pinanumpaang
Salaysay of PO1 Ignacio. The RTC declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of
illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
a dangerous drug and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issues:
1. Whether the chain of custody of evidence was broken.
1. Whether the chain of custody of evidence was broken.
2. Whether the guilt of Climaco for
the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug,
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. What is “chain of custody” and its
importance in the prosecution for illegal possession of prohibited drugs?
12.
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City went to
the police station to report alledged indecent show in one of the night
establishment shows in the City. At the station, a heated confrontation
followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman Navarro who was then
having drinks outside the headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The victim was
hit with the handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow, followed
by a fist blow, resulted the victim to fell and died under treatment. The
exchange of words was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic exclamations
made by Navarro after the altercation that it was the victim who provoked the
fight. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man , testified. Presented
in evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice recording he had made of the
heated discussion at the police station between the accused police officer
Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which was taken without the knowledge of the
two.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
2. Whether the mitigating
circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated in
favor of the accused.
13. On February 2, 1993,
Andrea, who was then three years old, came home crying, with bruises on her
right thigh. She told her guardian, Iluminada Beltran, that her uncle, herein
petitioner, touched her private part. In her own words, she said, "Inaano
ako ng uncle ko," while doing a pumping motion
with the lower part of her body to demonstrate what had been done to her. She
also said that petitioner showed his penis to her.
The matter was reported to Barangay Councilor
Carlos Lumaban who, with the child, the latter’s guardian, and three barangay
tanods, went to the house of petitioner to confront him. As
petitioner’s father refused to surrender his son to Lumaban and his party,
Lumaban sought assistance from the nearby Western Police District (WPD) Station
No. 7. It appears; however, that petitioner took advantage of the situation and
ran away.
On February 8, 1993, Lumaban was informed
that petitioner was in the nearby barangay. Together with some barangay tanods,
Lumaban went to the place where petitioner was reported to be, but petitioner’s
employer refused to surrender the latter to the authorities. Later, however,
with the aid of two policemen from the WPD Police Station No. 1, Lumaban and
his party were able to take petitioner to Precinct 1 and later to Precinct 7.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not
guilty to the charge of rape, whereupon trial ensued. In her testimony in court,
Andrea said that petitioner fondled her organ and showed her his penis. She
said that when petitioner did a pumping motion, she had no panties on and that
she was lying down. Petitioner was also lying down, according to her. The
medical report on Andrea prepared by Dr. Maximo Reyes, who examined
the child on February 3, 1993, showed that hymen of the victim is still intact.
Petitioner, on the other hand, denied the
accusation against him. He said that Andrea was coached by her guardian. He
likewise denied that he escaped from Lumaban and his men on February 2, 1993,
and said that he only went away to avoid any trouble that time. The trial court
found petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness hence this appeal.
ISSUES
Whether Andrea is a competent witness.
14.
Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married at the Roman Catholic Church in
Ermita, Manila. A year later, their union turned sour. They separated in fact.
Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s
psychological incapacity which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage
although the same became manifest only thereafter. Dissatisfied with the
allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the
trial court granted. Subsequently, in his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified
that at the time of their marriage,
Joselita was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept
the demands made by his profession — that of a newly qualified Doctor of
Medicine — upon his time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his
lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused
petitioner to lose his job.
Still petitioner was
not contented with the Bill of Particulars. She insists that the allegations in
the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal conclusion, not an averment of ultimate
facts, and fail to point out the specific essential marital obligations she
allegedly was not able to perform, and thus render the Bill of Particulars
insufficient if not irrelevant to her husband’s cause of action. She
rationalizes that her insistence on the specification of her particular conduct
or behavior with the corresponding circumstances of time, place and person does
not call for information on evidentiary matters because without these details
she cannot adequately and intelligently prepare her answer to the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage
and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in amplification of the petition
is sufficient.
15. Dano brothers had a
previous misunderstanding over the purchase of a horse from his cousin on
installment basis. Emeterio wanted to buy the horse, but appellant bought it
ahead of him, which caused the former to resent him.
On March 16, 1994, at 6:30 in the evening,
Wilfredo Tapian (Prosecutir’s witness) saw the victim pacing back and forth in
appellant’s front yard and armed with a scythe, shouting at appellant, who was
looking out of his window to come down so they could fight to the death. (“Kanaog
diri kay magkamatay ta.”) Wilfredo tried to pacify the victim who kept
repeating his challenge while striking his scythe on the ground but he was
ignored. Appellant also advised his younger brother to go home, but the latter refused to listen. Suddenly, Emeterio leaped at
appellant who was standing with his head out of the window and slashed appellant with his scythe but missed.
Demosthenes Peralta, the barangay captain of Tiguian,
was informed by Wilfredo and a certain Fernando Teves that the Dano brothers
were quarreling. Demosthenes went to appellant’s home to investigate. On his
way, he met appellant. The latter told Peralta he had killed Emeterio and
voluntarily surrendered to him. Demosthenes left appellant in Wilfredo’s house
and proceeded to appellant’s residence where he saw the bloody corpse of the
victim sprawled in the yard, near the stairs. He noticed that the body bore
several hacking and slashing wounds. Demosthenes fetched appellant from
Wilfredo’s house and took him to the police station.
The necropsy report established that the cause
of death was acute blood loss, secondary to multiple hacking wounds.
When interrogated by the police, appellant,
without assistance of counsel, admitted he killed his brother. The pertinent
portion of his statement, contained in the police blotter, and read into the
records without objection by the defense, reads:
“Subject admitted of killing his younger brother as the latter was
drunk and provoked him for a scythe duel right downstairs of his house that
prompted him to get his scythe and come down from his house and allegedly boxed
first his brother and subsequently hacked several times as he was already
commanded by his evil thoughts.”
Upon arraignment with the assistance of counsel
the accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, but the RTC of San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 29 rendered its decision convicting Alberto Dano herein accused-appelant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder, for the death of his brother Emeterio Dano,
and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua with qualifying
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND IN ADMITTING “EXHIBIT E” AS BASIS OF
CONVICTION OF THE CRIME CHARGED
16. An appeal of the decision of the RTC of Gumaca, Quezon,
Branch 62, convicting appellant of the crime of rape with homicide, imposing
upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the
heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P30,000.00 as
actual and moral damages.
Appellant
was 28 years old, married, cousin of the victim. The victim was an eight (8)
year-old girl, Dyesebel "Gigi" de la Cruz, who was reported missing
and the following day found raped and strangled to death near the riverbank of
the Tayuman river in Quezon province.
On
April 14, 1991, at around nine o’clock in the morning, Myra Pines, a
twelve-year old girl, was passing by the ricefield near the road located at
Barangay Ilayang Tayuman in the Municipality of San Francisco, Quezon Province she
heard a voice coming from the direction of the forested area of the place and
it seemed to her that someone was being strangled. Listening closely, she
recognized the voice as belonging to her friend and playmate, Dyesebel de la
Cruz. Frightened at the thought that Dyesebel was being strangled, Myra
scampered and proceeded to the crossing where she was originally headed for.
Later
that day, at around four o’clock in the afternoon, Barangay Captain Aristeo
Allarey of Barangay Ilayang Tayuman was visited in his house by Mila de la Cruz,
Dyesebel’s mother, who reported that her daughter was missing. Allarey sought
the assistance of his constituents and organized a search party.
Barangay
Captain Allarey learned from Gonzalo de la Cruz that, earlier, Dyesebel was in
the company of accused-appellant Vicente Valla, and that both of them were
tasked to watch the ricefield. They went to the ricefield but appellant was not
there. Allarey learned from a barangay tanod that appellant was drinking liquor
in the house of a friend within the same barangay. He summoned appellant but
the latter failed to immediately report to him.
On
the following day, at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, they finally found
Dyesebel. Her body was found near the river with her neck blackened and her
vagina bloodied. She was still wearing her dress but her panty had been pulled
down to her mid-thigh.
Allarey
and his companions immediately confronted appellant who, out of remorse,
admitted that he raped and killed Dyesebel. Thereafter, he addressed Dyesebel’s
father, in the presence of Allarey and company, offering his own daughter in
payment of Dyesebel’s life which he took and begged for forgiveness. De la Cruz
told appellant that he cannot accept appellant’s daughter.
Dyesebel’s
body was brought to the Bondoc Peninsula District Hospital in Catanauan,
Quezon, where an autopsy was performed. Dyesebel’s skull bore a depression on
the left temporal area which resulted from being struck with a hard object. Her
pubic area bore blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted cigarette.
Her hymen bore several lacerations indicative of repeated rape before and
possibly, after she was killed.
Upon
arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty
to the crime charged.
The
prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Myra Pines, the victim’s 12
year-old playmate, who heard the victim’s cries as she was being strangled, but
became afraid and went home instead; (2) Aristeo Allarey, the Barangay Captain
of Ilayang, Tayuman, San Francisco, Quezon, who organized a search party upon
report of the mother that her daughter was missing, and before whom, appellant
admitted that he raped and killed the victim, and even offered his
(appellant’s) daughter in return; (3) Gonzalo de la Cruz, father of the victim,
who took part in the search party, and who witnessed appellant’s confession to
the commission of the crime; (4) Reynaldo Merle, Barangay Tanod of Barangay
Ilayang, Tayuman, San Francisco, Quezon, another member of the search party;
(5) Bayani Samadan, Kagawad of the Barangay, also a member of the search party;
(6) Rodolfo Rosales, police investigator of San Francisco, Quezon, Philippine
National Police; (7) Dr. Araceli R. Madatu, Senior Resident Physician of Bondoc
Peninsula District Hospital, Catanauan, Quezon, who testified that when the
cadaver was brought for examination, it was in cadaveric rigidity, the legs
were spread like a woman about to give birth ("parang nanganganak"),
the tongue sticking out ("nakalawit), the skull crushed
("basag"), and the pubic area had blisters resulting from cigarette
burns, ("pinagpapaso ng sigarilyo"), and the vagina had a laceration
up to the anus, evidencing that the child was raped.
In
addition to the oral evidence, the prosecution offered as documentary evidence
the sworn statements of Barangay Captain Aristeo Allarey and Gonzalo de la
Cruz, the Criminal Complaints filed with the Municipal Trial Court of San
Francisco, San Andres, Quezon, and the Medico-legal Certificate signed by Dr. Madatu.
On
the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses (1) appellant himself
who bluntly denied any participation in the rape/killing of the victim, or that
he made any confessions to the barangay captain; he interposed the defense of
alibi that at the time of the alleged rape/killing, he was at his house in
Barangay Ilayang Tayuman, San Francisco, Quezon together with his wife, their
child and his brother, caring for his sick child, and (2) his father Emilio
Valla, who corroborated his story. The defense offered no documentary evidence.
On
March 29, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of
the crime of "rape with homicide,” sentencing him to suffer an
imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Appellant
claims that the testimony of prosecution witness Allarey was inconsistent since
on direct examination, Allarey narrated that when he summoned appellant, the
latter did not immediately appear, but on cross-examination, he said that
appellant immediately reported to him. Appellant also contends that Merle’s
testimony that appellant was "tulala" at the time he confessed to the
commission of the crime was inconsistent with appellant’s alleged begging for
forgiveness for the crime.
ISSUE”
WHETHER
OR NOT THE INCONSISTENCY OF TESTIMONIES AFFECTS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WITNESSES.
17. This is an appeal
from a decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI,
Quezon City, through Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz, finding Danilo Mesias y Sebastian
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide committed against Vivencio Cruz y
Ramos. The dispositive part reads:
At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of
September 26, 1980, while Mrs. Olympia Cruz was setting the table for dinner,
five (5) armed men, four of them wearing masks, barged into their house
situated at No. 41 Kasunduan St., Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City. Her
husband, Vivencio Cruz, was in the living room while their son, Marlon, then
six (6) years old, was in the bedroom watching television. Three (3) men poked
their guns at Vivencio.. Then, she heard the armed men ransacking their house.
Marlon was allowed by the malefactors to
return to the bedroom to watch television. Then through the open door, Marlon
saw the robber without a mask stab Vivencio three times, twice on the chest and
once on the left neck, with what appeared to be an icepick. Upon seeing his
father wounded, Marlon ran to his mother and exclaimed "Nanay, naku si
Tatay!" Olympia removed her blindfold and saw Vivencio apparently lifeless
and bathed in his own blood.
Of the alleged five offenders, only Mesias
was charged. At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the crime of robbery
with homicide. Trial followed. On January 26, 1982, the lower court rendered
the assailed judgment of conviction.
In
this appeal, accused Mesias insists on his innocence. His principal defense is
alibi.
He alleges that on the night of September 26, 1980, he slept early in his
sister's house located at the IBP site, Constitution Hills, Quezon City, about
a half (1/2) kilometer away from the crime scene. This was corroborated by his
sister, Leni Claudio, who testified that Mesias was in her house between 6:00
in the evening of September 26, 1980 and 6:00 in the morning of September 27,
1989. 6
To further support his claim of innocence,
Mesias alleges that the victim's widow and young son, mistook him for another
person because there is another man who looks just like him, which he calls his
"double", and who happens to live in the same area.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Defense of Alibi of Mesias
is tenable given the facts of the case.
18. Erlinda Ramos was a
robust woman except for occasional complaint of discomfort due to pains
allegedly caused by the presence of the stone in her gall bladder. Because of
discomfort which interfered her normal ways, she was advised to undergo an
operation. However, on her scheduled gall bladder operation in the Delos Santos
Medical Center, she sustained brain damage from wrongful intubation by her
anesthesiologist Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez. Petitioners filed an action for
damages and presented the testimony of Herminda Cruz, her sister in law, Dean
of the College of Nursing in the same institution, who was in the operating
room right beside her when the tragic event occurred. It was rebutted that Cruz
is not competent to testify since she is not an anesthesiologist, therefore she
had no expertise in the matter at hand.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY IS
NECESSARY IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICES WHEN THE DOCTRINE
OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR IS APPLICABLE
19. Two informations, one for murder of Ferdinand Rabadon and the other
for violation of Presidential Decree 1866 were filed at the RTC of Alaminos,
Pangasinan against Noel Navarro. The trial court declared the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and that the illegal possession
of firearm is considered merely as an aggravating circumstances considering
that the alleged firearm used was not recovered by the authorities and never
presented in court. According to the prosecution, Jose Rabago saw the incident
and reported the killing to a policeman Virgilio Rabadon. A day after, when
investigated by policemen Rolando Rabadon he said he did not see anything, and
explained that he did not divulge the identities of the assailant for fear of
his life for some policemen in Alaminos Pangasinan were members of the Aguila
gang allegedly led by Ramon Navarro. Lately, Rabago changed his testimony and
swore that it was not the appellant who had shot Rabadon , but a “short and
stout man”. Noel Navarro denied any participation in the killing of Rabadon and
reiterated that he was arrested without any warrant of arrest by the NBI and Prossecutor
Rabina charged him of murder without conducting a preliminary investigation.
Appellant also contends that the testimony of Prosecution witness Jose Rabago
was filled with serious and material inconsistencies, allegedly because he gave
three versions of the incident.
ISSUES: 1.
Whether or not the evidence of prosecution is credible and sufficient.
2. Whether or not the statements of Rabago given to both Virgilio
Rabadon and Rolando Rabadon were part of res gestae.
20. Tantuco Enterprises,
Inc. is engaged in the coconut milling and refinery industry. It owns two oil
mills both located at its factory compound. The two oil mills were separately
covered by fire insurance policies issued by American Home Assurance Company.
Both policies are paid for the full amount of premium covering for the period
of March 1, 1991 to 1992. On September 30, 1991, a fire broke out, gutted and
consumed the new oil mill. Insurer was immediately notified of the incident and
thereafter sent appraisers who inspected the burned premises and the properties
destroyed. However, insurer rejected the claim for the insurance proceeds on
the ground that no policy was ever issued by it covering the burned oil mill
citing the erroneous boundaries described in its policy. Further, insurer
argues that Tantuco Enterprises is barred by parol evidence rule from
presenting evidence of its self-serving intention that it intended really to
insure the burned oil mill.
ISSUES:
I.
What is Parol Evidence Rule?
II.
WON Tantuco Enterprises is barred by Parol
Evidence Rule in presenting evidence aliunde?
End of the Final Examination
No comments:
Post a Comment