Rule 128, secs. 1-4
1. Reyes v. Court of Appeals 216 SCRA 25 (1993)
2. People v. Turco 337 SCRA 714 (2000)
B. Relevance:
1. Sections 3 & 4, Rule 128
2. Bautista v. Aperece 51 O.G. 805 (1995)
3. State v. Ball 339 S.W2d 783 (1960)
C. Competence:
1. Section 3, Rule 128.
2. Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution, e.g.,
(a) Sections 2 and 3, Art. III
(b) Section 12, Art. III
(c) Section 17, Art. III
3. Statutory Rules of Exclusion, e.g.,
(a) Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997
(b) R.A. 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
(c) R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Wiretapping Act
i) Ganaan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112 (1986)
ii) Salcedo-Orta.ez v. CA 235 SCRA 111 (1994)
iii) Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
II. What Need Not Be Proved
A. Rule 129, Secs. 1-4;; Rule 10, Sec.
B. Cases:
1. Judicial Notice
(a) City of Manila v. Garcia 19 SCRA 413 (1967)
(b) Baguio vs. Vda. de Jalagat 42 SCRA 337 (1971)
(c) Prieto v. Arroyo 14 SCRA 549 (1965)
(d) Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales 167 SCRA 736 (1988)
(e) Tabuena v. CA 196 SCRA 650 (1991)
(f) People v. Godoy 250 SCRA 676 (1995)
(g) BPI-Savings v. CTA 330 SCRA 507 (2000)
RULE 128
REYES V. CA
FACTS: Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio
Mananghaya question the respondent Courts decision, which
affirmed with modification the agrarian courts
decision, which ordered them and the other defendants
therein to, among others, restore possession of the disputed
landholding to private respondent, Eufrocina Vda. dela Cruz.
Juan Mendoza, father of defendant Olympio, is the owner of
farm lots in Bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga. Devoted to the
production of palay, the lots were tenanted and cultivated by
now deceased Julian dela Cruz, husband of plaintiff Eufrocina
dela Cruz.
Eufrocina alleged that her husbands death, she succeeded
him as bona fide tenant of the subject lots; that Olympio, in
conspiracy with the other defendants, prevented her daughter
Violeta and her workers through force, intimidation, strategy
and stealth, from entering and working on the subject
premises; and that until the filing of the instant case,
defendants had refused to vacate and surrender the lots, thus
violating her tenancy rights. Plaintiff therefore prayed for
judgment for the recovery of possession and damages with a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the meantime.
Defendant barangay officials denied interference in the
tenancy relationship existing between plaintiff and defendant
Mendoza, particularly in the cultivation of the latters farm
lots and asked for the dismissal of the case, moral damages
and attorneys fees.
Mendoza raised abandonment, sublease and mortgage of the
farm lots without his consent and approval, and non-payment
of rentals, irrigation fees and other taxes due the government,
as his defenses.
Petitioners now bring the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
ISSUE: WN the affidavits filed by Eufrocina de la Cruz and Efren
Tecson admissible as evidence?
HELD: Since this is an agrarian case, Section 16 of PD 946 provides
that the Rules of Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even
in a suppletory character. In the same provision, it allowed affidavits
and counter-affidavits as admissible in evidence. In agrarian cases
like in the case at bar, the quantum of evidence required is
"substantial evidence" which is more than a scintilla, or 'such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.
Thus, petitioners are liable. The evidence presented before
the trial court and CA served as basis in arriving at their
findings of fact. The Supreme Court will not analyze such
evidence all over again because settled is the rule that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court absent the
exceptions which do not obtain in the instant case.
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence is no more
than substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not
necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an
ordinarily civil case. It has been defined to be such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its
own judgment or criteria for that of the trial court in
determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what
evidence is entitled to belief.
PEOPLE V. TURCO
FACTS: Rodegelio Turco was charged by RTC with the crime of rape.
The victim was his 13 year old second cousin, Escalea Tabada. Upon
reaching home, Escalea heard a call from outside. She recognized
the voice and when she asked who it was, the party introduced
himself as Turco. When she opened the door, Turco covered her
face with a towel and placed his right hand on her neck. He led her
to her fathers pig pen where he forced her to lie down and
mounted her. After consummating the act, Turco kissed her and
held her breasts. He threatened her that he will kill her if she
reports the incident. She reported the incident after 10 days and a
complaint was immediately filed. At the trial, Turco pleaded not
guilty and presented the sweetheart defense.
Trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer penalty of
reclusion perpetua + Php 50,000 moral damages. Turco appealed
arguing that Court erred in ruling that prosecution, based only
on affidavits and oral testimonies, was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. Aside from written
statement of complainant before the police station and her
testimony during direct examination, no other evidence was
presented. Although medical certificate was presented, medico
legal officer was not present at the trial.
ISSUE: W/N court can find accused guilty of rape based only on the
testimonies of the complainant and witnesses - yes
W/N medical certificate is admissible despite absence of medico
legal officer yes
RATIO: 3 guiding principles in review of rape cases: 1. Accusation of
rape can be made with facility; difficult to prove on the part of
complainant, more difficult to disprove for accused
2. In view of intrinsic nature of rape where only 2 persons are
usually involved, testimony of complainant is given importance and
scrutinized with extreme caution
3. Evidence of prosecution stands or fails on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence
of defense. Thus, the credibility of the complainant is a paramount
importance, and if her testimony proves credible, the accused may
be convicted on the basis thereof.
** The primordial consideration in a determination concerning the
crime of rape is the credibility of complainants testimony. Court
held that testimony of complainant Escalea Tabada must be given
credence: 1. Declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who
are young and immature deserve full credence. 2. Court also took
cognizance of the fact that complainant was poor and illiterate.
Court believes that these people value their virginity which like a
mirror, once dropped and broken, can no longer be pieced
together, not ever. 3. The victims relatively low intelligence
explains the lapses in her testimony. Lapses should be expected
when a person recounts details of an experience so humiliating
and painful as rape. 4. Victim had no motive to falsely testify against
accused. No woman, especially one at a tender age, would concoct
a story of defloration.
Sweetheart theory not true, merely concocted by accused to escape
criminal liability. No independent proof (i.e. love letters, etc.)
RULE 128: RELEVANCE

BAUTISTA V. APERECE

FACTS: