A. COLF Corp. v. Bernabe, Jr. (Decision of the Court of Appeals)
CV No. 61595 April 27, 2005 Petitioner: Consolidated Orient Leasing & Financing Corporation (COLF) Corporation Respondent: Luis Bernabe, Jr. Ponente: Pine, J. Facts of the Case: On June 4, 1982, COLF Corporation had a lease agreement involving three items which were received by Willie G. Sia, who was the lessee of the agreement. He refused to pay and return the equipment. As a result, COLF filed an action against him before the RTC of Makati that granted a writ of seizure ordered by Sheriff Silvino Pastrana. On the other hand, on February 3, 1984, judgment was rendered in favor of Bernabe who filed a case against Sia before the RTC of Bambang, Nueva, Vizcaya for the recovery of a sum of money. Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued against Sia. When Pastrana was about to take the equipment of Sia in accordance to the decision from RTC of Makati, he was intercepted by Bernabe claiming the equipment. This led COLF to file a Third Party Claim over the equipment and thus, filed an action against him on April 1, 1985 at RTC of Makati. The decision of the RTC was in favor of COLF. Thus, Bernabe filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals. Bernabe stands that he bought the equipment under legal processes as it was sold at public auction. Issue: Whether or not appellee is the owner of the units of heavy equipment sold at public auction Held: Yes. COLF Corp has sufficiently established by a preponderance of evidence that it was the real owner and Sia, a mere lessee of the heavy equipment. Hence, the trial court is correct in finding that COLF owns the units of the heavy equipment sold at public auction. Appeal dismissed and the judgment affirmed.
B. Government of the Philippine Islands v. Martinez 44 Phil. 817, January 10, 1918 Petitioner: Carmen Martinez and Dolores Martinez Respondent: Julio Salvador Ponente: Araullo, J. Facts of the Case: The Martinez Sisters and Salvador were both claiming the same land title in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo. Julio Salvador presented a certified copy issued by the acting registrar of deeds of Iloilo as evidence that the Martinez sisters made a document of sale of said lots to a man named Domenech who sold the land to Salvador. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment in favor of Salvador. The Martinez sisters appealed and alleged that the trial court erred in admitting the copy of the record of a supposed document of sale, presented by Salvador, in support of his claim of title without the disappearance or loss of the original document having been previously proved. Issue: Whether or not the introduction of secondary evidence is admissible Held: No. The general rule is that the secondary evidence of its contents cannot be admitted until the non production of the original has been satisfactorily accounted for. Judgment reversed.
C. People of the Philippines v. Antivola G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 487 Petitioner: Sally de Guzman Respondent: Rodel Antivola Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J Facts of the Case: It was a review of the decision of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan Branch 78 convicting Antivola of qualified rape and sentenced him with death penalty. It was claimed that he molested Rachel de Guzman, a five- year-old child. Rachel said that Antivola took her inside his house who told her that they were going to play a game. But once inside, the appellant removed her shorts, touch her private parts and inserted his penis in the childs vagina. Laboratory exam on Rachel showed multiple fresh lacerations on her hymen. Thus, RTC convicted him. The appellant appealed that the lower court failed to prove the age of the alleged victim. Her birth certificate was not submitted as evidence and the only basis for her age was the childs testimony and her mothers. Issue: Whether or not the evidence for the childs age to determine the propriety of the penalty imposed on the appellant is sufficient. Held: No. The High Court held that appellant is only guilty of simple rape for failure of the prosecution to present competent evidence to prove the victims age. Thus, Antivolas penalty would be from death penalty to reclusion perpetua. Judgment is affirmed with modification.
D. Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 129329, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 56 Petitioner: Ester M. Asuncion Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission, Mabini Medical Clinic, and Dr. Wilfrido Juco Ponente: Kapunan, J. Facts of the Case: Petitioner Ester Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by the respondent Mabini Medical Clinic on August 16, 1993. On August 1994, private respondent, Medical Director Wilfrido Juco, issued a memorandum for the petitioner charging her with offenses mainly chronic absenteeism, habitual tardiness, loitering and wasting of company time, and other reasons. She was required to explain within two days why she should not be fired based on the charges in the memorandum yet she had submitted the response 3 days later and was terminated. This prompted the petitioner to file a case for illegal termination. The Labor Arbiter stated that the allegations against the petitioner lack evidence. The respondent presented handwritten and unsigned entries and computerized print-outs as evidence for the petitioners absenteeism and tardiness. The Labor Arbiters decisions were reversed by the NLRC. Thus, Asuncion filed a petition for certiorari in the High Court. Issue: Whether or not the evidence is admissible and satisfied the employers burden of proof Held: No. The print-outs which constitute the only evidence of the employer afford no assurance of their authenticity and are easily subject to fraud. The unexplained and unjustified non-presentation of the record book, which is the best evidence, casts serious doubts on the factual basis of the charges of absenteeism and tardiness. The consistent rule is that when doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, it must favor the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Not having satisfied the burden of proof, the Court held that the termination is illegal. Decision of the NLRC reversed and the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstated.
E. De Vera v. Aguilar G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1988, 218 SCRA 602 Petitioners: Basilio De Vera, Luis De Vera, Felipe De Vera, Eustaquia De V era, and Maria De Vera Respondents: Mariano Aguilar and Leona Aguilar Ponente: Campos, Jr., J. Facts of the Case: Basilio, Luis, Felipe, and Maria, all surnamed De Vera, and respondent Leona, married to Mariano Aguilar, are the children and heirs of the late Marcosa Bernabe who had passed away. Respondent Mariano Aguilar presented an Original Certificate of Title No. P-1356 (M) issued in his name. Petitioners wrote to the respondents that they were co-owners of the land as children of Marcosa Bernabe. The petitioners also claimed that the respondents resold the propert to Marcosa Bernabe on April 28, 1959 which was denied by the respondents. As a result, the petitioners filed a falsification case which was dismissed and filed a suit for reconveyance. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners. Repondents appealed in the CA stating that the petitioners failed to produce the original of the alleged deed of sale dated April 28, 1959. Thus, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC of Bulacan for failure of the petitioners to prove the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale and all of its duplicate original copies. Petitioners presented that the loss of original document had been proven by the testimony of the representatives of the offices of the National Archives and the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan. Issue: Whether or not the presentation of secondary evidence is admissible Held: No. The petitioners did not satisfactorily prove the loss of original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation of the xeroxed copy of the same. Secondary evidence is admissible when the original document were actually destroyed or lost. The best evidence needed in this case was not actually lost or destroyed for it was submitted to the Office of Registration of Deeds for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked that office to produce it in court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another, they should have called the Register of Deeds or his representative to explain why. That the failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original of the document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, the secondary evidence of it is not admissible. Decision affirmed.
F. People of the Philippines v. Alcoreza (Decisions of the Court of Appeals) C.R. No. 27498, January 27, 2005 Petitioner: Richard Cachapero Respondent: Virgilio Alcoreza Ponente: Tagle, J. Facts of the Case: Complainant Richard Cachapero and his wife brought their sick child to the hospital and brought their owner-type jeep and parked it there. He noticed a young boy and an older man standing nearby that time. When he returned, he found that the plastic sidings of his jeep were slashed and the total value of things stolen from them was 35, 500php. He reported the matter to Security Guard Dante Laureto who called for police assistance. They caught the accused and saw the missing articles inside the backseat of the tricycle where the accused rode. Alcoreza appealed that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as there were no eyewitnesses presented against them. Issue: Whether or not the accused is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt even without eyewitnesses presented against him Held: Yes. In our jurisdiction, direct evidence is not the only basis upon which the guilt of an accused may be proved. There are crimes where there are no eyewitnesses at all. Under such circumstances, the offense may be established through circumstantial evidence.
(Best Practices for Forensic Mental Health Assessment ) Eric Y. Drogin, Curtis L. Barrett-Evaluation for Guardianship (Best Practices for Forensic Mental Health Assessment)-Oxford University Press, U.pdf