GENERAL PROVISIONS  Consists of tangible things – exhibited/demonstrated in open court, in an

ocular inspection, or at a place designated by the court, for its

RULE 128 view/observation of an exhibit, experiment, or demonstration
 Referred to by Wigmore as evidence by “autoproptic preference” – by “proferring” or
General Provisions presenting in open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of
Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of the tribunal (Kabase v. State)
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) 2. Documentary evidence (See: R130, Secs. 2-19)
 Supported by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as
- This section provides the legal definition of evidence. letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances.
- Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings 3. Testimonial evidence (See: R130, Secs. 20-51)
[Bustos v. Lucero]  Submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness
- Sec. 1 has 5 elements [Avena Notes] B. Relevant, Material, Competent
1. Means 1. Relevant evidence
o Not an end in itself but merely a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a  Has value in tending to prove ANY MATTER provable in an action
matter of fact.  TEST: logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue – does the former
2. Rules TEND to establish the probability or improbability of the latter
a. Includes the constitution, statute &IRRs 2. Material evidence
3. Judicial proceeding – Sactioned by and takes place in courts  Directed to prove a FACT IN ISSUE as determined by the rules of substantive law and
a. When does a JP commence? pleadings
b. Criminal case: upon the filing of the info in Ct  In issue or not? Determined by substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order, and
c. Civil case: upon the filing of the initiatory complaint by admissions and confessions on file
d. Special proceeding: filing of the initiatory pleading  NOTE: evidence may be RELEVANT but may be IMMATERIAL in the case
4. Matters 3. Competent evidence
5. Fact  Not excluded by the Rules, a statute, or the Constitution
- The law of evidence is fundamentally a procedural law, and can be principally found in
the ROC (Rule 128-133). Test of Relevancy vis-à-vis Materiality of Evidence

Proof Test of Relevancy Materiality of Evidence

- Proof is the result or effect of evidence. (When the requisite quantum of evidence of a Logical relation of the evidentiary fact to Determined by whether the fact it intends to
particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight, the result is called the proof of the fact in issue, i.e., whether the former prove is in issue or not.
such fact.) tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the latter.
Factum probandum Factum probans
Ultimate fact or fact sought to Evidentiary fact or the fact by C. Direct, Circumstantial
be established which the factum probandum is 1. Direct evidence
to be established.  That which proves the fact in dispute WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY INFERENCE OR
The proposition The materials which establish PRESUMPTION
the proposition 2. Circumstantial evidence
 Proof of fact/s from which – taken singly or collectively – the existence of a particular
Classification fact in dispute may be INFERRED as a necessary or probable consequence]
 There is more than one circumstance
A. As to Form  The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and,
1. Object (real) evidence (see: R130, Sec.1)  The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
 Directly addressed to the senses of the court – the ascertainment of the reasonable doubt [R133, Sec. 4]
controverted fact is made through the direct use of the different senses  NOTE: Requisites for Conviction by Circumstantial Evidence (Criminal Case) [B2015]
of the presiding magistrate (or his authorized delegate)  There is more than one circumstance

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |1

  The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
and, hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)
 The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt [R133, Sec. 4] Distinction between Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases (B2015)
 (Additional Notes)
 A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must Evidence in Civil Cases Evidence in Criminal Cases
exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with Requirement from party having the burden of proof
innocence Preponderance of evidence Guilt of the accused proved
 Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense, vis-à-vis beyond reasonable doubt
direct evidence Offer of Compromise
o As to probative value, the Court considers Not an admission of liability, May be received in evidence as
circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to
and is not admissible in an implied admission of guilt
direct evidence because no greater degree of evidence against the offeror
certainty is required when the evidence is
Presumption of Innocence
circumstantial
NA; there is generally no Accused enjoys constitutional
o In both types of evidence, proof beyond
presumption for or against a presumption of innocence
reasonable doubt is required
party – except in certain cases
 Direct evidence is not indispensable to prove a crime
provided for by law (e.g.
D. Cumulative, Corroborative
Common Carriers)
1. Cumulative evidence
 Evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (B2015)
2. Corroborative evidence
 “False in one thing, false in everything”
 Additional evidence of a different character to the same point
o If the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with
E. Prima facie, Conclusive
the intention to deceive – the jury may disregard ALL the witness’ testimony
1. Prima facie evidence
(Hargrave v. Stockloss)
 That which, standing alone, unexplained, or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain
the proposition affirmed  The maxim is NOT an absolute rule of law, and is in fact rarely applied in modern
2. Conclusive evidence jurisprudence (People v. Baltin)
 Class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted o Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be shown to have willfully
F. Primary, Secondary falsified the truth on one or more material points.
 The Principle presupposes the existence of a material point contrary
1. Primary (best) evidence
 That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question to subsequent declarations in the testimony (Northwest Airlines v.
Chiong)
2. Secondary (substitutionary) evidence
 Permitted by law only when the best evidence is NOT available
G. Positive, Negative Alibi, Frame-up; Self-defense (B2015)
1. Positive evidence  Alibi
 Witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur o For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for
 Accorded greater weight (Bayasen v. CA) – since the witness represents of his personal him to be PRESENT at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
knowledge the presence or absence of a fact commission.
2. Negative evidence  Alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful
 Witness merely states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact witnesses
 Accorded lesser weight since there is no representation or disavowal that the fact in  Negative
question could or could not have existed or happened  Self-serving
o Requisites
SCOPE  Presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense; and.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |2

  Physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission
 Self-defense
o Like alibi, it is inherently week because it can be easily fabricated (Rugas v. People)
 Frame-up
o The defense of frame up is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is
easy to contrive and difficult to disprove (People v. Del Monte)
Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime (B2015)
 Does not render their testimonies false or incredible
o The delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their
abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case (People v. Navarro)
 There is always the inherent fear of reprisal
“except as otherwise provided by law or these rules”
 RA 4200: prohibits the admission in evidence (judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or
administrative investigation) of any communication, spoken word, or any information
procured by wire-tapping (and related means)[from Regalado]
 Art. 448, Code of Commerce: provides certain rules on the evidentiary weight of
conflicting entries in merchants’ books [from Regalado]
 Certain presumptions of law and fact:
o Civil Code
o RPC
o Special Laws
 Sec. 3(2), Art. III (Bill of Rights), 1987 Constitution: evidence obtained in violation of
Secs. 2 (Search and Seizure] and 3 (Privacy of Communication and Correspondence) of
the same Article – inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
 Immunity statutes
o RA 1379: immunity to witnesses in proceedings for the forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired property
o PD 749: immunity in bribery cases
 Rules of evidence are specifically applicable ONLY in judicial proceedings
 Quasi-judicial: only by analogy or in suppletory character, and whenever practicable
and convenient (R1, Sec. 4) – EXCEPT, where the governing law specifically adopts the
rules of evidence in the RoC
o NOTE: General rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by technical rules of
evidence – technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied, and
administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial
terms [Riano, citing Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Tormon and Samalio v. CA]
o Labor cases: reliance on the technical rules of evidence is misplaced [Riano, citing
Mayon Hotel & Restaurantv. Adana]
 In labor cases, it is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify, and be
cross-examined [Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers, Inc.] [Cirtek Employees Labor
Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.]
 Parol evidence rule should not be strictly applied in labor cases
 NLRC can consider documents submitted that had not been presented before
the LA [Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC]
 Proceedings before the NLRC need not comply with the best evidence rule
[Sasan, Sr., v. NLRC]
o Board of Medicine: rules of evidence are not strictly applied [Atienza v. Board of
Medicine]
o Civil Service Commission: investigations are conducted without necessarily adhering
to technical rules of procedure [Civil Service Commission v. Colanggo]
o Petition for naturalization: rule on formal offer of evidence NA [Ong Chia v. Republic]
 Court of Agrarian Relations: RoC not applicable even in a suppletory character
o Except: criminal and expropriation cases (Sec. 16, PD 946)
ADMISSIBILITY
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a)
Requisites:
(1) The evidence is relevant, and
(2) The evidence is competent-not excluded by the law or Rules of Evidence.
Notes:
 Relevancy– such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief on its existence on
non-existence (sec. 4)
o Is hence determinable by the rules of logic and human experience [Regalado].
o Affair of logic and not of law [Francisco]
 Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence [Regalado].
o Law of Evidence- only declares whether matter which is logically probative is
excluded [Francisco]
 The above requisites/elements correspond to Wigmore’s two axioms of admissibility:
(a) That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible – prescribes that
whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is
calculated, according to the prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect rational
persuasion [Francisco]
(b) That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule
forbids them
o expresses that legal proof, though has rules of its own, does not intend to vary
without cause from what is generally accepted in the rational processes of life; and
o that of such variation, some vindication may always be demanded
o IOW: in the system of evidence, the rules of exclusion are rules of exception to a
general admissibility of all that is rational and probative. [Francisco]
o Everything having a probative value is ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be
admissible, and that therefore any rule of policy which may be valid to exclude
it is a superadded and abnormal rule. (e.g. hearsay rule, plain on its face that it
is excluded)
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |3
 o Evidence is any class of evidence which has “rational probative value” to establish
the issue in controversy [Regalado].
 No evidence is admissible until it is relevant. However, relevancy alone does not make
the evidence admissible.
 Evidence may be relevant but not admissible [incompetent].
 Evidence must be both relevant and competent to be admissible.
 The admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to the court [Sec. 35,
Rule 132].
o Object or real evidence is offered to the court when the same is presented for its view
or evaluation, as in ocular inspections or demonstrations, or when the party rests his
case and the real evidence consists of objects exhibited in court.
o Testimonial evidence is offered by the calling of the witness to the stand.
o Documentary evidence is formally offered by the proponent immediately before he
rests his case [Regalado].
 Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence
is offered, or as soon
Admissibility Weight of the Evidence
as thereafter the
Refers to the question of Probative value – refers to
objection to
whether certain pieces of the question of whether the
admissibility shall
evidence are to be considered admitted evidence proves an
have become
at all issue.
apparent, otherwise
Depends on its relevance and Pertains to its tendency to the objections shall
competence. convince and persuade. be considered
waived [Abrenica v. Gonda].
o In the case of testimonial evidence, objection to the qualifications of the witness
should be made at the time he is called to the stand, and if the witness is otherwise
qualified, the objection should be raised when the objectionable question is asked or
after the answer is given if the objectionable features became apparent by reason of
such answer.
o Objections to object or real evidence must be made at the time it is presented in an
ocular inspection or demonstration or when it is formally offered;
o Objections to documentary evidence, at the time it is formally offered [Regalado].
 As admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence,
admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law.
 The weight to be given to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation with
the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the decisional rules of the Supreme Court.
Admissible Evidence vis-à-vis Credible Evidence
Admissible Evidence Credible Evidence
Admissible – evidence is of such a character Credibility – worthiness of belief; that quality
that the court, pursuant to the rules of which renders a witness worthy of belief.
evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it
to be introduced at the trial.
Notes:
 Credibility [of a witness] is an issue addressed to the judgment of the trial court. [People
v. Castro]
 Factual findings of the trial courts which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed absent any
showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which
substantially affect the outcome of the case. [Yulo v. People]
 Minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect the credibility of witnesses, and these may
even serve to strengthen their credibility as these negate any suspicion that the
testimonies have been rehearsed. [Ingal v. People]
 Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect and even
finality by the Supreme Court if supported by substantial evidence in recognition of their
expertise on certain specific matters under consideration. [Quiambao v. CA]
 In determining the value and credibility, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.
[Bastian v. CA]
Admissibility vis-à-vis Weight of the Evidence
Notes
 Admissibility of evidence does not depend on its weight and sufficiency; where
its particular evidence satisfies the test of relevancy and, if believed by the court is
material, it is admissible—its credibility and weight being questions of fact for the court.
[Francisco]
 Despite this principle, courts do not forget that trials must be kept within reasonable
bounds. Evidence may be relevant but relevancy may be so slight and inconsequential
that it would distract attention that ought to be concentrated on what bears directly on
vital points. [Francisco]
o In determining whether any particular testimony offered belongs to this category or
not, a certain discretion is necessarily vested in the trial court.
 Weight – depends on the practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge
trying the case. Involves:
o Credibility of witnesses
o Likelihood or unlikelihood of the truth being in one direction or the other, and
o All inherent probabilities and improbabilities deducible from the evidence as a
whole.
o Illustration: mom gives testifies that his son D was at home in bed during the time of
the murder. A distinguished physician testifies he was attending D in his home when
murder was committed. Both are equally admissible but it is likely that the court will
give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician than that of a
mother. [Francisco]
Multiple admissibility of evidence
 When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules
applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule
which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does NOT exclude it.
[Francisco]
 (1) There are times when proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.
[Riano]
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |4
 Sometimes, [evidence] is admissible for one purpose but admissible for another or vice-
versa. [Riano]
 Evidence may be admissible against one party, but not against the other. [Riano]
 Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence
should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it
satisfied all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefor [People v. Toledo].
 Illustration: prior threat may be inadmissible as to D’s reasonable apprehension of
assault since D did not hear P’s prior threat against his life but the same threat can be
admissible as evidence of P’s design to kill D. [Francisco]
Conditional Admissibility
 If the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence, the
proponent may ask that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime,
subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a
later time [Riano].
 Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the
relevancy of one depends upon another not yet evidenced, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the
court, as condition precedent
1. To state the supposed connecting facts, and
2. To promise to evince them later
 If a promise thus made is not fulfilled, court may strike out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted, if a motion is made by the opposite party.
 Illustration: P is claiming title to a land. P offers evidence that land was passed through
series of deeds from A to B, B to C and then C to D. P’s title from D depends on an
heirship between them. Deeds are admissible, conditionally on the later production of
this evidence attesting to the heirship.
Curative Admissibility
 This doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the
opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any
unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence. [Adams v.
Burlington]
 The principle applies where inadmissible evidence was admitted without objection. [Id.]
Objection to otherwise inadmissible evidence is required by the Rules of Court. [Riano]
 It is only where the objection was incorrectly overruled, that the court should allow the
other party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly admitted in
order to cure the prejudice caused to the other party against whom the offered
evidence was erroneously admitted. [Riano]
 This doctrine treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his
behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse
party [Regalado].
Three Theories on Curative Admissibility
1. American Rule – admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the
opponent, does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent
evidence.
2. English Rule – if a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party may
resort to similar inadmissible evidence.
3. Massachusetts rule – the adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar
incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the
admission of the other party’s evidence.
Notes:
 What should determine the application of the rule on curative admissibility are:
(1) whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to, and
(2) whether, regardless of the objections vel non, the admission of such evidence will
cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.
4. Lack of objection to incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the party against whim
it is introduced but does not deprive the opposing party of his right to a similar
rebutting evidence.
5. This technical rule, however, should be relaxed if one party would suffer a plain and
unfair prejudice [31 C.J.S. 913].
6. Documentary evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a timely motion or action
to suppress [Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno].
RELEVANCY
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
Relevant Evidence
 Evidence is relevant when it has “such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence”.
 Relevant evidence is evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter
provable in an action.
 The matter of relevance requires a fact in issue. Such fact must be a disputed fact.
 It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes evidence either relevant or irrelevant.
It is considered relevant if it induces belief as to the existence or non-existence of a fact
in issue. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
 Relevance requires that the immediate fact proven must have a connection to the
ultimate issue.
Test for Determining Relevancy
 Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic, common sense, and human experience.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |5
 The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the offered evidence is
one that is perceived only by mind without reference to a statute or rule. It is, therefore,
a matter of reasoning.
Relevance of Evidence on the Credibility of a Witness
 Evidence on the credibility (or lack of it) of a witness is always relevant.
 The credibility of the witness has the inherent tendency to prove or disprove the
truthfulness of his assertion and, consequently, the probative value of the proffered
evidence.
Competent Evidence
 Evidence that is not excluded by law or the Rules.
 Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence.
 Competence refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as such.
 When applied to a witness, it refers to the qualifications of the same.
 If evidence offered is objectionable on the ground that it is incompetent, an objection
that it is incompetent is not an accepted form of objection. The objection should specify
the ground [leading, hearsay, or parol].
Collateral Matters
 Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to
the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
 A matter is collateral when it is on a “parallel or diverging line”, merely “additional” or
“auxiliary” [Black’s Law Dictionary]
 It connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in
dispute.
 Not all collateral matters are prohibited by the rules. Where the collateral matters are
relevant to the fact in issue because they “tend in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the fact in issue”, evidence of such collateral matters
is admissible.
 What the Rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant collateral facts.
Ilisan v. People of the Philippines (2010) – Nachura, J.
Petitioner: Romeo Ilisan y Piabol
Respondents: People of the Philippines
Concept: Relevance
Brief Facts: In a baptismal party, there was a drunken melee where the group of Ilisan
mauled Gaton. Ilisan shot Gaton in the abdomen, killing him. The RTC and the CA convicted
Ilisan of homicide, giving more weight to the witnesses of the prosecution and
notwithstanding the negative results on the paraffin test. The SC upheld the CA, only
increasing the actual damages.
Doctrines: Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior
motive, nor does it ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness.
On the contrary, a witness’ relationship to the victim would even make the testimony more
credible as the natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the
conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other than the
true culprits.
Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the
logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus
worthy of full faith and credit.
Paraffin tests are unreliable.
FACTS:
1. February 3, 2002 - A baptismal celebration was held at Ricky Silva’s residence in
Novaliches, Quezon City. Among the attendees were Ilisan and Joey Gaton. They
belonged to different groups of guests.
- While they were having a drinking spree with their respective groups, one of
Ilisan’s companions apparently got irked by the way Gaton looked at him.
- Ilisan and his companions mauled Gaton. A melee ensued, and Ilisan shot Gaton at
the abdomen, causing the latter’s instantaneous death.
- The gun used was a .45 caliber pistol.
2. February 7, 2002 – Information for murder was filed against Ilisan.
3. Pieces of evidence:
- Prosecution: testimonies of Gabriel Gaton (victim’s brother; was summoned to the
place of the incident while his brother was being mauled), Marlon Dellamas (went
to the scene of the incident to look for his brother Jojo), and Edgardo Dag-um (he
was at the place where the mauling and shooting transpired). All three positively
identified Ilisan as the gunman. Dellamas and Dag-um were the victim’s
neighbours.
- Defense: testimonies. Ilisan and his witnesses Jomarie Ilisan and Jaime Escasinas
(Ilisan’s brother and cousin) claimed that another guest Chito Partisala, a jail guard
in Bicutan, was the assailant.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |6
 - Also presented Engr. Leonard Jabonillo, forensic chemist of the Central Police
District Crime Lab, who testified that Ilisan tested negative for gunpowder
residue when paraffin tests were conducted a day after the incident.
4. RTC: convicted Ilisan of homicide.
- Accorded more weight to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
over the declarations of the defense.
- No adequate proof that treachery and evident premeditation qualified the killing.
- Sentenced Ilisan to suffer imprisonment for a term ranging from 8 years and 1 day
of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as
maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amounts of P75, 000
as actual damages, P50,000 for the death of the victim and P50,000 as moral
damages.
5. On appeal to the CA, Ilisan questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who
allegedly harbored ill motive against him because they were either related to the victim
or to one of the participants in the commotion.
- Also argued that the negative results of the paraffin residue test conducted on him
strongly indicate his innocence.
6. CA: RTC decision was affirmed, with modification of the maximum period of the
indeterminate sentence to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium,
and the reduction of the award of actual damages to P58,520. Hence, the present
petition.
7. Ilisan appealed to the SC, reiterating the issues he raised before the CA.
ISSUES and RULING:
1. WON the prosecution’s witnesses are credible. (YES)
2. WON there was misappreciation of the facts. (NO)
3. WON the paraffin test should be given weight. (NO)
4. WON Ilisan's version of events should be accepted. (NO)
5. WON imposed penalty is correct. (YES except for actual damages)
RATIO:
1. Yes, the prosecution’s witnesses are credible.
- As to Gabriel: The fact that Gabriel is the victim’s brother does not impair his
credibility as witness. Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of
bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish the
testimony of a witness. On the contrary, a witness’ relationship to a victim would
even make the testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who
is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the culprit.
The natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the
conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other
than the true culprits.
- As to Dellamas and Dag-um: There is no indication that the two were improperly
motivated when they testified. Aside from the prosecution witnesses’ relationship
with the other participants in the fight, Ilisan failed to show any other basis for the
ill motive he imputes against them. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any
reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that
no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith
and credit.
- The Court is bound by the findings of the TC in the absence of any clear showing
that it overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which would
alter a conviction.
2. No. There was no misappreciation of facts committed by the courts below.
- The courts were uniform in their reliance on the prosecution’s version. Both were
correct in concluding that the identity of Ilisan and his actual shooting of Gaton
were established beyond moral certainty through the testimonies of 3 witnesses:
Witness Gabriel Gaton:
Q: How far were you when you saw that man who was pointing a gun at your brother Joey?
A: (Witness indicating a distance of 10 meters more or less.)
Q: And how far was the man with a gun from your brother Joey?
A: (Witness indicating a distance of 2 meters.)
Q: What was the position of your brother Joey when the man was pointing his gun to your
brother Joey?
A: Sidewise, sir.
Q: What happened after you saw the man pointing a gun at your brother?
A: I shouted: Don’t (Huwag naman) but he ignored me and then the gun went off.
Q: What happened after the gun went off?
A: After firing the gun, he pointed the gun to the bystanders.
Q: What happened to your brother?
A: He fell down, sir.
Witness Dellamas:
Q: What happened after they entered the gate which you said was opened?
A: The person who was armed with a gun shot at Joey Gaton.
Q: How far were you when this person shot Joey Gaton, how far were you to this person?
A: I was very near, ma’am. I was about a meter only away from them.
xxxx
Q: And what happened after this person who you just identified as Romeo Ilisan shot Joey
Gaton, what happened?
A: Joey Gaton fell down, ma’am.
Witness Dag-um:
Q: Mr. Witness, you said a while ago that Joey Gaton was already dead, how did he die?
A: He was shot, sir.
Q: Who shot him?
A: Romeo Ilisan, sir.
xxxx
Q: You pointed to Romeo Ilisan as the person who shot Joey Gaton, how far were you
when Romeo Ilisan shot Joey Gaton?
A: About two (2) meters away sir.
3. No, paraffin tests in general have been rendered inconclusive by the SC.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |7
 - Paraffin tests can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the
hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED with modification.
nitrites was the discharge of a firearm.
- The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of Digest maker: Kris
a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun.
- Conversely, the absence of gunpowder nitrates, the day after the incident, does not
conclusively establish that he did not fire a gun; neither are the negative results yielded
by the paraffin test a proof of innocence.
- People v. Manalo: "Even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a
negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is
possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when
the hands are washed before the test. The Court has even recognized the great
possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the
bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol.”
- Thus, the positive, clear, and categorical testimonies of the three eyewitnesses to the
crime deserve full merit in both probative weight and credibility over the negative
results of the paraffin test conducted on petitioner and his witnesses’ anomalous claims.

4. No, such version is a mere afterthought intended to exculpate Ilisan.

- If it is true that they saw Partisala shoot Joey, why did they not tell the policeman who
arrived at the scene immediately that Partisala was the gunman? Why did Jomarie wait
until somebody pointed to the accused as the gunman before he told them that it was
Partisala who shot the victim?

5. Yes, the prison term and the other awards for damages are correct, except for actual
damages.
- Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance proven, the penalty should be applied in its medium period (14 years, 8
months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)
- Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the maximum penalty will be selected from
the above range, with the minimum penalty being selected from the range of penalty
one degree lower than reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to
12 years). Thus, the 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor (as minimum) to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, imposed by the RTC, and
affirmed with modification by the CA, is correct.
- Actual damages pertain to the actual expenses incurred by the victim’s heirs in relation
to his death, i.e., burial and funeral expenses. To justify an award, it is necessary for a
party to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable, such as receipts.
- In this case, the actual expenses incurred for the wake and burial of the victim were duly
shown by receipts in the aggregate amount of P88,520.00. But the CA awarded
only P58,520.00, which appears to have been caused by the non-inclusion of Exhibit "L,"
a receipt for P30,000.00 paid by the victim’s wife for the deceased’s autopsy and
embalming treatment, and use of mortuary equipment for the interment.
- Having convincingly proved the nature of the expense in the amount of P30,000.00 in
Exhibit "L," it is only right to increase the actual damages awarded to the victim’s heirs
to P88,520.00.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA |8