Evid Case Digests

8/18/2019 Evid Case Digests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evid-case-digests 1/13

G.R. No. 110813 June 28, 2001

PEOPLE vs. PARDUA

The case is an appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Isabela, Roxas, Branch 23 convicting

accused Ernesto ardua, Rogelio ardua, !eorge ardua and "arlito ardua of murder and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnif# $ointl# and severall# the heirs of the victim Toribio %impliciano in

the amount of &2,'''('' as actual and compensator# damages, and an additional sum of 1)','''('' as moraland exemplar# damages and to pa# the costs(

*n +pril 2, 1--3, the trial court rendered a decision,1. the dispositive portion of /hich reads0

"ERE*RE, in the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions the Court believes and so holds

that the prosecution has abl# and satisfactoril# proved the guilt of the accused be#ond an# iota of doubtas principals of the offense charged 4ualified b# evident premeditation( aving acted in conspirac#, thecommission thereof attended b# the follo/ing aggravating circumstances0 abuse of superior strengthand in utter disregard of the due respect to their elder, the deceased Toribio %impliciano, and /ithoutan# mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the Court hereb# sentences each and ever# one of themto suffer the penalt# of Reclusion erpetua /ith all the accessor# penalties provided for b# la/5 to

indemnif# $ointl# and severall# the deceased victim Toribio %impliciano the sum of &2,'''('' asactual and compensator# damages, and an additional sum of 1)','''('' b# /a# of moral and

exemplar# damages, and to pa# the costs(

%* *R6ERE6(

ence, this appeal(1)

In their appeal, accused7appellants 4uestion the credibilit# of the prosecution /itnesses( +ccording to them, onl#Ernesto committed the hac8ing that led to Toribio9s death and he did so to defend his landholding from theunla/ful entr# of his brother7in7la/, Toribio(

It is /ell settled that the findings of a trial court on the credibilit# of /itnesses deserve great /eight, given theclear advantage of a trial $udge over an appellate magistrate in the appreciation of testimonial evidence( It is/ell7entrenched that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibilit# of /itnesses and their testimonies because of its uni4ue opportunit# to observe the /itnesses firsthand and note their demeanor,conduct and attitude under grueling examination( These are the most significant factors in evaluating the

sincerit# of /itnesses and in unearthing the truth( In the absence of an# sho/ing that the trial court9s calibrationof credibilit# /as fla/ed, /e are bound b# its assessment(1&

"e have carefull# revie/ed the testimonies of the /itnesses both for the prosecution and the defense as /ell as

other evidence( "e are convinced that the trial court correctl# held that the accused7appellants9 guilt /asestablished be#ond reasonable doubt( "e have no reason to doubt the testimon# of *rlando and :uanito( The#recounted details of the horrif#ing experience of seeing their uncle, Toribio, 8illed, in a manner reflective of honest and unrehearsed testimon#( Their candid, plain, straightfor/ard account of the unto/ard incident thathappened in broad da#light and in an open field, /as free of significant inconsistencies, unsha8en b# rigidcross7examination(

+ccused7appellants fault the trial court for considering the testimon# of :uanito, /ho /as not among those present at the scene of the crime b# *rlando and +lfredo, and /hose name /as not listed in the information asamong the prosecution /itnesses( +ccording to accused7appellants, :uanito9s testimon# is a fabrication, for he

sa/ nothing of the incident /hich befell his uncle, Toribio(

The Court is not persuaded( +s long as a person is 4ualified to become a /itness, he ma# be presented as oneregardless of /hether his name /as included in the information or not(1

+ccused7appellants claimed that *rlando and :uanito /ere biased /itnesses for the# /ere nephe/s of thevictim( The prosecution could have presented other companions of the victim at the time of the hac8ing incident,li8e Esperidion illos, +lfredo ;illanueva, Bobot illos, El# la uente and <ariano la uente, /ho /ere not

relatives of Toribio(

+ccused7appellants9 contention deserves scant consideration( <ere relationship of *rlando and :uanito to thevictim does not automaticall# impair their credibilit# as to render their testimonies less /orth# of credence

/here no improper motive ma# be ascribed to them for testif#ing( In fact, a /itness9 relationship to a victim, far from rendering his testimon# biased, /ould even render it more credible as it /ould be unnatural for a relative

/ho is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebod# other than the real culprit(1=

In li8e manner, >eonora9s testimon# that she heard her brothers plan the 8illing of her husband, deserves great

1



/eight and credence( In her desire to bring to $ustice her husband9s assailants, she /ould not falsel# impute toher o/n brothers the 8illing of her husband( This goes against the grain of human nature and is thereforeunli8el#(

The failure of the other companions of the victim to testif# is of no moment( The defense could have presentedthem as their /itnesses in order to ferret out the truth( The defense failed to do so(1-

A.M. No. MTJ-91-619 Janua! 29, 1993

"ALA#ON vs. O$AMPO

or our consideration is a letter7complaint of +tt#( ugolino ;( Bala#on, :r(, dated *ctober -, 1--1, charging

:udge !a#difredo *( *campo of the <etropolitan, Trial Court, Tupi, %outh Cotabato /ith gross ignorance of thela/ and grave misconduct(

FOURTH COMPLAINT:

The complaint states that respondent :udge, /ith gross ignorance of the la/, allo/ed a /itness to testif# duringthe trial /ithout previousl# submitting his affidavit as re4uired under %ection 1. of the Rules on %ummar#

rocedure( 6In People vs. Esther Ante, Criminal Case ?o( )22& for %light h#sical In$uries, a prosecution /itness /ho hadnot previousl# submitted his affidavit /as allo/ed b# respondent :udge to testif# during the trial, over andabove the ob$ection of complainant( Complainant alleged that %ection 1. of the Rules on %ummar# rocedure

expressl# prohibits an# /itness, /ithout exception, from testif#ing during the trial /ithout previousl#submitting his affidavit, citing the case of on!ales v. Presi"in# $u"#e o% &ranch '( RTC o% &ohol ( %

In Orino vs. $u"#e ervasio, 8 the %upreme Court ruled in a <inute Resolution that even if a /itness has not

properl# submitted his@her affidavit, he ma# be called to testif# in connection /ith a specific factual matter relevant to the issue( Thus, a medical doctor /hose medical certificate is among the evidence on record ma# becalled to testif#( This also applies to a Register of 6eeds or rovincial +ssessor in connection /ith officialdocuments issued b# his office( Respondent :udge ma# not therefore be held guilt# of ignorance of the la/(

IN )UMMAR* , "e resolved the eight complaints filed against respondent :udge as follo/s0

FIR)T COMPLAINT: Ander Cannon 2 of the 1-=- Code of :udicial Conduct, respondent :udge should avoidimpropriet# and the appearance of impropriet# in all his activities( "hile respondent :udge /as found to have/ritten the police station Commander of Tupi, %outh Cotabato, in good faith, he should refrain from engaging in

such activit#, and other similar ones, so as not to tarnish the integrit# and impartialit# of the $udiciar#(

)ECON+ COMPLAINT: There is no basis for the charge against respondent :udge of improperl# issuing asearch /arrant and a /arrant of arrest in relation to Criminal Case ?o( )'1&( The issuance /as not attended /ithmalice or bad faith( The complaint is therefore hereb# dismissed(

THIR+ COMPLAINT: This being the second complaint against respondent :udge for alleged issuance of asearch /arrant and@or a /arrant of arrest in Criminal Case ?o( )123 in violation of the re4uirement of personal

8no/ledge, respondent :udge is hereb# admonished to exercise more circumspection and prudence in theissuance of the said /arrants so as not to un/ittingl# trample on the constitutionall# guaranteed rights of theaccused(

FOURTH COMPLAINT: This complaint is dismissed( "e hold respondent :udge not guilt# of ignorance of the

la/ /hen he allo/ed a /itness to testif# despite his non7submission of an affidavit( This is /ell /ithin the Ruleson %ummar# rocedure(

FIFTH COMPLAINT: or the unauthoried notariation of nine private documents, respondent :udge is fined

TE? T*A%+?6 E%*% 1','''(''D /ith /arning that the commission of similar acts in the future /ill/arrant a more severe sanction(

)I,TH COMPLAINT: This complaint is dismissed( That respondent :udges decision of convicting accused in a

criminal complaint for light threats /as reversed on appeal on reasonable doubt is not an indication of

respondent :udges lac8 of correct appreciation of facts( + mere error in $udgment is immaterial in anadministrative complaint against a $udge absent an# sho/ing of bad faith(

2



)E-ENTH COMPLAINT: There is enough evidence to hold respondent :udge remiss in the performance of hisduties as municipal $udge /hen he dismissed a criminal case for theft filed /ith his sala for preliminar#investigation despite his o/n finding that there /as intent to gain on the part of the accused /hen the#

appropriated the galvanied iron sheets( Thus, respondent :udge is again admonished to exercise more prudenceand circumspection in the performance of his duties as municipal $udge(

EIHTH COMPLAINT: The denial of a demurrer to the evidence is left to the sound discretion of the Court,

rather than an indication of ignorance of the la/( It /as /ell /ithin the respondent :udges discretion, absent an#sho/ing of bad faith or excess of $urisdiction, for him to have denied complainants 6emurrer to the Evidence inCriminal Case ?o( )1='( The complaint is therefore dismissed(

G.R. No. 100199 Janua! 18, 1993

PEOPLE vs. DOM&NGUE'

rudencio 6omingue and Rodolfo <acalisang, along /ith Roger C( 6omingue, /ere charged /ith the

murders of Regional Trial Court :udge urita +( Boligor and of her brother >uther +vanceFa( rudencio andRodolfo /ere found guilt# and sentenced to suffer the penalt# of reclusion perpetua and to indemnif# the heirsof :udge urita +( Boligor in the amount of 3','''('' and the heirs of >uther +vanceFa of another 3','''('',

$ointl# and severall#( +t the same time, the trial court dismissed the charges against Roger C( 6omingue for lac8 of sufficient evidence(

In their brief, accused7appellants assigned the follo/ing as errors allegedl# committed b# the trial court0

irst error G the trial court gravel# erred in giving credence to the prosecutions evidence, particularl# the testimon# of *scar Cagod, and basing its $udgment of conviction thereon(

%econd error G the trial court gravel# erred in refusing to give credence to the evidence of the

accused7appellants(

Third error G the trial court gravel# erred in not ac4uitting the accused7appellants anddeclaring them innocent of the charge against

them( 1

The prosecutions case rested mainl# on the testimon# of *scar Cagod /ho /itnessed the above se4uence of events from a store across the street( The defense, for its part, attac8ed the credibilit# and the testimon# of *scar Cagod on the follo/ing grounds0

irst, Cagod /as not a disinterested /itness, having lived in the house of :udge Boligor for eighteen 1=D to nineteen 1-D #ears and having treated the :udge li8e his o/n mother5

%econd, Cagod /aited for four .D months after the sla#ing of :udge Boligor and >uther +vanceFa before he executed his s/orn statement5

Third, Cagod, according to the defense, executed his s/orn statement onl# after the police

authorities had arrested him and promised him immunit# from prosecution( is testimon#therefore came from a polluted source and should be received onl# /ith utmost caution(

ourth, Cagod had been convicted, /hen he /as t/elve 12D #ears old, of murder, a crimeinvolving moral turpitude and accordingl# his testimon# deserved no credence(

>ast, the defense assailed the testimon# of Cagod as being incredible in itself(

In its fourth contention, the defense stresses that *scar Cagod had been convicted of murder /hen he /ast/elve 12D #ears old and insists that, therefore, Cagods testimon# deserves no credence and must beconsidered /ith extreme caution( 1( Initiall#, /e note that Rule 13' of the Revised Rules of Court provides asfollo/s0

%ec( 2'( itnesses/ their 0uali%ications( G Except as provided in the next succeeding section,all persons /ho can perceive, and perceiving, can ma8e 8no/n their perception to others, ma# be /itnesses(

( ( ( 1C2onviction o% a cri3e unless other/ise provided b# la/, shall not 4e a #roun" %or

"is0uali%ication( Emphasis suppliedD(

In Cor"ial v. People, 16 this Court echoed the above cited provision of la/ stating that

3



even convicted criminals are not excluded from testif#ing in court so long as, having organs of sense, the# can perceive and perceiving can ma8e 8no/n their perceptions to others( 1%

The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to discredit a /itness5 the testimon# of such a/itness must be assa#ed and scrutinied in exactl# the same /a# the testimon# of other /itnesses must beexamined for its relevance and credibilit#( ?one of the cases cited b# the appellants militates against this proposition( 18

G.R. No. 1)(22( A*+ 2, 200)

PEOPLE vs. GOL&ML&M

*n appeal is the 6ecision1 of :une -, 2''' of the Regional Trial Court of %orsogon, %orsogon, Branch &) inCriminal Case ?o( 2.1, finding appellant %alvador !olimlim alias Badong guilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of rape, imposing on him the penalt# of reclusion perpetua( and holding him civill# liable in the amountof )','''('' as indemnit#, and )','''('' as moral damages(

inding for the prosecution, the trial court, b# the present appealed 6ecision, convicted appellant as charged(The dispositive portion of the decision reads0

"ERE*RE, premises considered, accused %alvador !olimlim having been found guilt# of thecrime of R+E +rt( 33) R((C( as amended b# R+ &)-D be#ond reasonable doubt is hereb# sentencedto suffer the penalt# of REC>A%I*? ERETA+, and to indemnif# the offended part# Evel#nCanchela in the amount of )','''('' as indemnit# and another )','''('' as moral damageHs, and to

pa# the costs(

%* *R6ERE6(2'

ence, the present appeal, appellant assigning to the trial court the follo/ing errors0

I( TE C*ART + JA* !R+;E>K ERRE6 I? !I;I?! "EI!T +?6 CRE6E?CE T* TEC*?TR+6ICT*RK +?6 I<>+A%IB>E TE%TI<*?K * E;E>K? C+?CE>+, + <E?T+>RET+R6+TE, H+?6

II( TE C*ART + JA* !R+;E>K ERRE6 I? I?6I?! T+T TE !AI>T * TE +CCA%E67

+E>>+?T *R TE CRI<E C+R!E6 +% BEE? R*;E? BEK*?6 RE+%*?+B>E6*ABT(21

+ppellant argues that Evel#n9s testimon# is not categorical and is replete /ith contradictions, thus engenderinggrave doubts as to his criminal culpabilit#(

In giving credence to Evel#n9s testimon# and finding against appellant, the trial court made the follo/ing

observations, 4uoted ver4ati30

1D 6espite her /ea8 and dull mental state the victim /as consistent in her claim that her apa# Badongaccused %alvador !olimlimD had carnal 8no/ledge of her and /as the author of her pregnanc#, andnobod# else %ee0 or comparison her %/orn %tatement on p( 3@Record5 her narration in the s#chiatric

Report on pp( . L .=@Record5 the T%?s of her testimon# in open courtD5

2D %he remains consistent that her apa# Badong raped her onl# once5

3D That the contradictor# statements she made in open court relative to the details of ho/ she /asraped, although /ould seem derogator# to her credibilit# and reliabilit# as a /itness under normalconditions, /ere ampl# explained b# the ps#chiatrist /ho examined her and supported b# her findings%ee0 Exhibits to 72D5

.D 6espite her claim that several persons laid on top of her /hich is still sub$ect to 4uestionconsidering that the victim could not elaborate on its meaningD, the lucid fact remains that she never pointed to an#bod# else as the author of her pregnanc#, but her apa# Badong( "hich onl# sho/s that

the trauma that /as created in her mind b# the incident has remained printed in her memor# despite her /ea8 mental state( urthermore, granting for the sa8e of argument that other men also laid on top of her, this does not deviate from the fact that her apa# Badong the accusedD had sexual intercourse /ithher(22

The trial $udge9s assessment of the credibilit# of /itnesses9 testimonies is, as has repeatedl# been held b# thisCourt, accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had theadvantage of actuall# examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the /itnesses(23

.



In the present case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to /arrant a departure from the findings of the trialcourt /ith respect to the assessment of Evel#n9s testimon#(

That Evel#n is a mental retardate does not dis4ualif# her as a /itness nor render her testimon# bereft of truth(

%ections 2' and 21 of Rule 13' of the Revised Rules of Court provide0

%EC( 2'( itnesses/ their 0uali%ications( M Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons /ho can perceive, and perceiving, can ma8e 8no/n their perception to others, ma# be

/itnesses(

x x x

%EC( 21( +is0uali%ication 45 reason o% 3ental incapacit5 or i33aturit5. M The follo/ing personscannot be /itnesses0

aD Those /hose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that the# areincapable of intelligentl# ma8ing 8no/n their perception to others5

bD Children /hose mental maturit# is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts

respecting /hich the# are examined and of relating them truthfull#(

In People v. Trelles,2. /here the trial court relied heavil# on the therein mentall# retarded private complainant9s

testimon# irregardless of her monos#llabic responses and vacillations bet/een lucidit# and ambiguit#, thisCourt held0

+ mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se, dis4ualified from being a /itness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibilit#( It is no/ universall# accepted that intellectual

/ea8ness, no matter /hat form it assumes, is not a valid ob$ection to the competenc# of a /itness solong as the latter can still give a fairl# intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to(2)

It can not then be gainsaid that a mental retardate can be a /itness, depending on his or her abilit# to relate /hat

he or she 8no/s(2& If his or her testimon# is coherent, the same is admissible in court(2

To be sure, modern rules on evidence have do/ngraded mental incapacit# as a ground to dis4ualif# a /itness(+s observed b# <cCormic8, the remed# of excluding such a /itness /ho ma# be the onl# person available /ho

8no/s the facts, seems inept and primitive( *ur rules follo/ the modern trend of evidence(2=

Thus, in a long line of cases,2- this Court has upheld the conviction of the accused based mainl# on statementsgiven in court b# the victim /ho /as a mental retardate(

rom a meticulous scrutin# of the records of this case, there is no reason to doubt Evel#n9s credibilit#( To besure, her testimon# is not /ithout discrepancies, given of course her feeblemindedness(

B# the account of 6r( Chona Cu#os7Belmonte, <edical %pecialist II at the s#chiatric 6epartment of the Bicol<edical Center, /ho examined Evel#n, although Evel#n /as suffering from moderate mental retardation /ithan IJ of .&,3' she is capable of perceiving and relating events /hich happened to her(

G.R. No. 130331 Novee 22, 2000

PEOPLE vs. TUANG$O

In the morning of :anuar# ., 1--), the na8ed cadaver of +urea Eugenio, a boo88eeper emplo#ed b# the Centro

Escolar Aniversit# Credit Cooperative in <anila /as found l#ing beside a cree8 about )' meters a/a# from thenational high/a# in +palit( er bod# bore multiple stab /ounds and her private parts /ere bloodied and sho/edsigns of sexual abuse(

The principal evidence against the accused consisted of the testimon# of an e#e/itness, %ilvestre %anggalan, adeaf7mute( e gave his testimon# through sign language, /hich /as interpreted b# a sign language expert( Thecourts summation of the evidence is as follo/s0

The trial court ruled that the guilt of the accused as charged /as established /ith the re4uired 4uantum of evidence and concluded that the three accused conspired to commit the crimes charged( The accused /eresentenced as follo/s0

"ERE*RE, the Court finds the accused +del Tuangco # 6ion and %onn# Tuangco # 6ion guilt# be#ondreasonable doubt as principals of the crime of theft defined in +rticle 3'- in relation to +rticle 3'= of the

)



Revised enal Code and of the crime of Rape /ith omicide defined in +rticle 33), as amended, of the sameCode and hereb# renders $udgment as follo/s0

1( In Criminal Case ?o( -)71&'-<D, the said accused are convicted of Theft and hereb# sentenced tosuffer the indeterminate penalt# ranging from six &D months of arresto ma#or as minimum to t/o 2D#ears, eleven 11D months and ten 1'D da#s of prision correccional as maximum5 the said accused areli8e/ise ordered to indemnif# the heirs of the victim +urea Eugenio, $ointl# and severall#, the amount

of 3,'''(''(

2( In Criminal Case ?o( -)71&1'<D, the aforesaid accused are convicted of t/o 2D special complexcrimes of Rape /ith omicide and each of them is hereb# sentenced to t/o 2D death penalties5 both of

them are ordered, $ointl# and severall#, to indemnif# the heirs of the victim +urea Eugenio the sum of 1'),1)'('' as actual damages, and the further sums of aD )','''('' for the victims death, bD1'','''('' as moral damages and cD )','''('' as exemplar# damages, or a total of 2'',''', ineach of the t/o 2D crimes /hich the# have separatel# committed and each shall pa# one7half ND of thecosts(

The case is before this Court on automatic revie/(

The ublic +ttorne#s *ffice submits the follo/ing assignment of errors in the appellants brief0

ITE TRI+> C*ART !R+;E>K ERRE6 I? !I;I?! A>> +IT +?6 CRE6E?CE T* TE+>>E!E6 EKE"IT?E%% +CC*A?T * %I>;E%TRE %+?!!+>+? "* I% + 6E+7<ATE+?6 A?%C**>E6(

II

TE TRI+> C*ART !R+;E>K ERRE6 I? I?6I?! B*T +CCA%E67+E>>+?T% !AI>TK

BEK*?6 RE+%*?+B>E 6*ABT * T"* 2D C*A?T% * %ECI+> C*<>EO CRI<E *R+E "IT *<ICI6E +?6 TET(1'

In discrediting the testimon# of the deaf7mute e#e/itness, accused7 appellant points out that because %ilvestre

%anggalan has had no formal schooling in a special school for deaf7mutes, the possibilit# that resort tocon$ectures and surmises, brought about b# overealousness to understand /hat his /itness reall# /anted to sa#

could not be discounted( Thus, accused7appellant cites certain portions of %anggalans testimon# /hich appearedunclear, e(g(, the /itness admitted that the place /here the incident happened /as ver# dar8, and he /asinconsistent as to /ho, bet/een +del Tuangco or :un Tatoo, /as the first to rape the victim( Thus, his handicap prevented a truthful narration of /hat reall# transpired(

The %olicitor !eneral pra#s for an affirmance of the decision in all respects( e asserts that a deaf7mute is4ualified to testif#, and the interpreter explained that through sign language, %anggalan demonstrated ho/Eugenio /as raped and thereafter 8illed b# appellants and ineda, :r( It is claimed that the inconsistencies

pointed out are minor and do not detract from the positive identification made b# /itness %anggalan of theaccused7appellants as the persons /ho raped and 8illed Eugenio and too8 her personal effects(

+fter a ver# careful examination of the evidence of record, /e resolve to affirm the $udgment of conviction( "e

find no cogent $ustification to disturb or set aside the finding of the trial court upholding the credibilit# of thedeaf7mute /itness, on the follo/ing rationaliation0

This Court, cogniant of the ph#sical handicap of the e#e/itness %ilvestre %anggalan, carefull# scrutinied his

testimon# and noted that the same /ere made, on several occasions from :ul# 1', 1--) /hen he /as called for the first time to testif# until :ul# ), 1--& /hen he /as recalled for the purpose of cross7examination on behalf of accused %onn# Tuangco, in a candid and straightfor/ard manner( "hile the Court observes minor inconsistencies in his declarations, these are not reasons to render his testimon# incredible( *n the contrar#, it is/ell7established that minor inconsistencies in the testimon# of a /itness are indications that the same is notrehearsed and all the more should be considered credible( Thus, discrepancies in minor details indicate veracit#

rather than prevarication and onl# tend to bolster the probative value of such testimon#( eople vs( <ocasa, 22-%CR+ .22D(

This Court li8e/ise evaluated ver# carefull#, the 4ualifications and competence of Eva %angco, the sign

language expert utilied b# the prosecution and found the same to be sufficient to put on record /ith accurac#,the declarations being made b# /itness %anggalan on the /itness stand( +ccording to Eva %angco, sign

language experts have different mode of communications( These are aD oral method bD simultaneous method cD pantomine dD reverse interpretation eD speech reading fD natural signs and gestures and gD interactive /ritings

&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_130331_2000.html#fnt10




/hich are more on dramatiation and dra/ing illustrations( In the interpretation of the declarations of /itness%anggalan, Eva %angco emplo#ed the natural homemade sign method( Eva %angco has undergone severaltrainings on this particular method( T%?, :ul# 21, 1--), pp( 7=D(

In its futile attempt to destro# the credibilit# of /itness %anggalan, the defense attac8ed his character and present a /itness in the person of <erlita Baliber to sho/ that he is a drun8ard and a drug addict( >i8e/ise thedefense presented documentar# evidence Exh( 3D to sho/ that %anggalan had been accused of rape in a

criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of asig, Rial( These evidence presented b# the defense areunavailing( In eople vs( 6omingue, 21 %CR+ 1', it /as held that even a fact of prior criminal convictionalone does not suffice to discredit a /itness( +nd in eople vs( Tanco, 21= %CR+ .-., it /as held that the mere pendenc# of a criminal case against a person does not dis4ualif# him from becoming a /itness( or the test tomeasure the value of the testimon# of a /itness is /hether or not such is in conformit# to 8no/ledge andconsistent /ith experience of man8ind( eople vs( <orre, 21 %CR+ 21-D( This Court finds it unnecessar# to

reiterate the earlier discussion as to /h# it gives credence to the testimon# of /itness %anggalan(

The theor# of the accused7appellant that %anggalan could not truthfull# and convincingl# conve# /hat reall#transpired on that fateful night because he had no formal schooling in a school for special persons li8e him and

the interpreter /as not the one /ho had taught him is not tenable(

+ deaf7mute is not incompetent as a /itness( +ll persons /ho can perceive, and perceiving, can ma8e 8no/ntheir perception to others, ma# be /itnesses(12 6eaf7mutes are competent /itnesses /here the# 1D can

understand and appreciate the sanctit# of an oath5 2D can comprehend facts the# are going to testif# on5 and 3Dcan communicate their ideas through a 4ualified interpreter(13 Thus, in eople vs( 6e >eon1. and eople vs(%asota,1) the accused /as convicted on the basis of the testimon# of a deaf7mute( +lthough in eople vs(Bustos1& the testimon# of a deaf7mute /as re$ected, this /as because there /ere times during his testimon# thatthe interpreter could not ma8e out /hat the /itness meant b# the signs she used( In the instant case, theinterpreter /as a certified sign language interpreter /ith t/ent#7t/o 22D #ears teaching experience at the

hilippine %chool for the 6eaf, had exposure in television programs and had testified in five other previouscourt proceedings(

G.R. No. L-2686% Au/us 10, 192%

PEOPLE vs. DE LEON

It appears from the record that on or about the 1&th da# of +ugust, 1-2&, a complaint /as presented against thedefendant in the court of the $ustice of the peace of the municipalit# of <alabon, rovince of Rial, b# themother of the offended person, accusing the defendant of the crime of rape( Apon that complaint the defendant/as arrested and given a preliminar# examination, at the close of /hich the $ustice of the peace found that there

/as probable cause for believing the defendant /as guilt# of the crime charged, and held him for trial in theCourt of irst Instance of the rovince of Rial(

Apon said complaint the defendant /as dul# arraigned, tried, found guilt# of the crime charged in the complaint,

/ith aggravating circumstance therein mentioned, and sentenced b# the onorable Emilio <apa, $udge, to beimprisoned for a period of seventeen #ears, four months and one da# of reclusion te3poral , /ith the accessor# penalties of the la/, to maintain the child, if an# should be born, b# virtue of said illicit relation, and to pa# the

costs of the trial( The lo/er court further ordered that the time /hich he has alread# suffered in prison( romthat sentence the defendant appealed( The appellant contends that the lo/er court committed an error in notabsolving him from all liabilit# under the complaint and in finding him guilt# of the crime of rape( + 4uestion of

fact onl# is presented b# the appellant(

The appellant contends that the lo/er court committed an error in not absolving him from all liabilit# under thecomplaint and in finding him guilt# of the crime of rape( + 4uestion of fact onl# is presented b# the appellant(

+fter a careful examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, /e are full# persuaded that theevidence sustains the findings of the lo/er court be#ond a reasonable doubt(

The defendant attempted to exculpate himself b# attempting to sho/ that the complaint /as presented againsthim as a matter of vengeance and that the complaint and the evidence adduced against him /ere purefabrication( "e find nothing in the record that $ustifies his contention( The evidence clearl# supports theallegations of the complaint and sho/s, be#ond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the acts

described in the complaint at the time and place and in the manner and form therein described( The evidencesho/s that the offended person is #oung girl, 1) #ears old5 that she is a deaf and dumb person and is the step7













daughter of the appellant( The evidence further sho/s that the appellant is guilt# of fraud and deceit in inducinghis step7daughter to accompan# him to the place /here the crime /as committed( A( %( vs( Iglesia and ;alde,21 hil(, ))D( There should also be considered against the appellant the aggravating circumstance of 8inship, the

appellant being the step7father of the offended person( 6ecision of the %upreme Court of %pain, :ul# 2&, 1=,1 ;iada p( 2.-(D

G.R. No. L-)0)62 Ju! 31, 198)

PEOPLE vs. MUNAR

The accused !il <unar, appeals his conviction for the crime of Rape b# the Court of irst Instance of angasinan, Branch IO, on +ugust 2', 1-1, /hich sentenced him to an indeterminate penalt# of ten 1'D #earsand one 1D da# of prision 3a5or as minimum to seventeen 1D #ears, four .D months and one 1D da#of reclusion te3poral as maximum, to indemnif# the offended part#, a mentall# retarded girl of 1- #ears of age,

in the sum of ),'''('', and to pa# the costs of suit( 1

In a Resolution, dated 6ecember 23, 1-., the Court of +ppeals no/ Intermediate +ppellate CourtD /here theappeal /as initiall# brought, certified the case to this Tribunal on the ground that since the lo/est penalt#

prescribed for rape isreclusion perpetua, the same is /ithin our exclusive appellate $urisdiction( 2 o/ever, on:anuar# 3', 1-=., in conformit# /ith our ruling in People vs. +aniel( 3 /e returned the records of the case tothe Intermediate +ppellate Court for the determination of the proper penalt# as the circumstances /arrant, /itha comprehensive /ritten anal#sis of the evidence and discussion of the la/ involved, but the Intermediate+ppellate Court shall refrain from entering $udgment, and shall thereafter certif# the case and elevate the entirerecords thereof to this Court for revie/(

Conformabl# to that directive, on <arch 21, 1-=., the +ppellate Court, in a 6ecision penned b# :ustice >orna%( >ombos7de la uente and concurred in b# :ustices Emilio +( !anca#co and Isidro C( Borromeo, found thatthe appealed $udgment should be modified such that the imposable penalt# shall be reclusion perpetua inasmuch

as the rape /as committed /ith the use of a deadl# /eapon, and its commission /as not attended b# an#modif#ing circumstances( ) The case is /ith us no/ for revie/, /ithout an# $udgment having been entered inthe +ppellate Court(

Apon a careful revie/ of the evidence, /e sustain the factual findings and conclusions of la/ embodied in the+ppellate Courts $udgment, and, therefore, adopt the same and append it as an integral part of this 6ecision+nnex +D(

The fact that complainant /as feeble7minded, /hose actual age at the time of the incident /as 1- #ears but/hose mental age /as that of a )7#ear7old child, does not affect her credibilit#( +s stated b# the Trial Court, her ans/ers /ere intelligible enough to be understood( ( %he could conve# her thoughts b# /ords and signs( +nd,as the examining ph#sician of the ?ational <ental ospital testified, the mental deficienc# does not prevent her from recalling painful experiences( 6 %he is a competent /itness( % There ma# have been inconsistencies in her testimon#, but the same are minor and do not detract from the vital fact that she had, in fact, been abused b# the

accused in the manner that she had narrated( ?either the Trial Court nor the +ppellate Court, therefore, erred ingiving /eight and credence to her testimon#, there being no improper motive sho/n( 8

Considering that the rape /as committed /ith the use of a 8nife, a deadl# /eapon, and in the absence of an#

modif#ing circumstances attending its commission, the penalt# of reclusion perpetua conforms to +rticle 33) inrelation to +rticle &32D of the Revised enal Code(

G.R. No. L-39012 Janua! 31, 19%(

ORDOO vs( DAU&GAN,

+velino *rdoFo /as charged in the municipal court of %an !abriel, >a Anion /ith having raped his daughter,>eonora, on *ctober 11, 1-'( The verified complaint dated ?ovember , 1-3 /as signed b# the t/ent# four #ear old victim Criminal Case ?o( 1'.D(

In support of that complaint, Catalina Balanon *rdoFo, the mother of >eonora, executed a s/orn statement/herein she disclosed that on that same date, *ctober 11th, >eonora had apprised her of the outrage but nodenunciation /as filed because +velino *rdoFo threatened to 8ill >eonora and Catalina his daughter and /ife,

=



respectivel#D if the# reported the crime to the police(

Catalina *rdoFo in her s/orn statement further revealed that her husband had also raped their other daughter,Rosa, on <arch 2) and +pril , 1-3( e /as charged in court /ith that offense(

The case against +velino *rdoFo, /here >eonora *rdoFo /as the complainant, /as elevated to the Court of irst Instance of >a Anion, %an ernando, Branch Criminal Case ?o( 3)&D( *n <a# 2-, 1-. the iscal

presented Catalina *rdoFo as the second prosecution /itness( +fter she had stated her personal circumstances,the defense counsel ob$ected to her competenc#( e invo8ed the marital dis4ualification rule found in Rule 13'of the Rules of Court /hich provides0

%ec( 2'( +is0uali%ication 45 reason o% interest or relationship( G The follo/ing personscannot testif# as to matters in /hich the# are interested, directl# or indirectl#, as hereinenumerated0

xxx xxx xxx

bD + husband cannot be examined for or against his /ife /ithout her consent5 nor a /ife for

or against her husband /ithout his consent, except in a civil case b# one against the other or ina criminal case for a crime committed b# one against the other5

xxx xxx xxx

Counsel claimed that +velino *rdoFo had not consented expressl# or impliedl# to his /ifes testif#ing againsthim(

The trial court overruled the ob$ection( +fter the denial of +velino *rdoFos motion for the reconsideration of the adverse ruling, he filed the instant action for certiorari and prohibition( e /as allo/ed to sue in %or3a

pauperis(

The issue is /hether the rape committed b# the husband against his daughter is a crime committed b# himagainst his /ife /ithin the meaning of the exception found in the marital dis4ualification rule(

%hould the phrase in a criminal case for a crime committed b# one against the other be restricted to crimescommitted b# one spouse against the other, such as ph#sical in$uries, bigam#, adulter# or concubinage, or shouldit be given a latitudinarian interpretation as referring to an# offense causing marital discordP

There is a dictum that /here the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmon# to be preserved nor peace and tran4uilit# /hich ma# be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmon# andtran4uilit# fails( In such a case identit# of interests disappears and the conse4uent danger of per$ur# based onthat identit# is non7existent( >i8e/ise, in such a situation, the securit# and confidences of private life /hich thela/ aims at protecting /ill be nothing but ideals /hich, through their absence, merel# leave a void in the

unhapp# home eople vs( rancisco, = hil( &-., '.D(

In the Francisco case, the /ife, as a rebuttal /itness, /as allo/ed to testif# against the husband /ho /ascharged /ith having 8illed his son and /ho testified that it /as the /ife /ho 8illed their son(

"e thin8 that the correct rule, /hich ma# be adopted in this $urisdiction, is that laid do/n in Cargill vs( %tate, 3)+>R 133, 22' ac( &., 2) *8l( 31., /herein the court said0

The rule that the in$ur# must amount to a ph#sical /rong upon the person is too narro/5 andthe rule that an# offense remotel# or indirectl# affecting domestic harmon# comes /ithin theexception is too broad( The better rule is that, 6hen an o%%ense "irectl5 attac7 or "irectl5 an"

vitall5 i3pairs( the con8u#al relation( it co3es 6ithin the e9ception to the statute that one shall

not be a /itness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed b#Done against the other(

Asing the criterion thus $udiciousl# enunciated in the Cargill case, it can be concluded that in the la/ of evidence the rape perpetrated b# the father against his daughter is a crime committed b# him against his /ife

the victims motherD(

The trial court did not err in holding that Catalina *rdoFo could testif# against her husband, +velino *rdoFo, inthe case /here he is being tried for having raped their daughter, >eonora(

-



G.R. No. L-12%2) Au/us 10, 191%

U.4. vs. 5EL&$&ANO

elix +tacador filed a complaint against his /ife <argarita eliciano and one edro ;elas4ue, charging them

/ith the crime of adulter#( +fter a fe/ /itnesses had been called in the separate trial of ;elas4ue, on motion of the prosecution the case /as dismissed( *n the trial of <argarita eliciano, she /as found guilt# and sentenced

to three #ears six months and t/ent#7one da#s of prision correccional , /ith the costs( rom this sentence shehas appealed, ma8ing four assignments of error(

*ne assignment of error is that the trial court should have dismissed the case against the accused in vie/ of having dismissed the case against her coaccused ;elas4ue( The argument that the charge of adulter#,necessaril# under on complaint, is indivisible impresses one strongl#( o/ever, there is no/ no occasion todiscuss this point for in the late case of A( %( vs( TopiFo and !uman H1-1&D 3) hil(, -'1D citing the decisionof the supreme court of %pain of :anuar# 1, 1==-, it /as expressl# held that /here a man and a /oman are

charged in the same complaint /ith the crime of adulter# the ac4uittal of the /oman does not necessaril# carr#/ith it the ac4uittal of the man, although the offense is one /hich can onl# be committed b# t/o persons(araphrasing the language some/hat, it can no/ be held that under a complaint for adulter# the ac4uittal of theman does not necessaril# carr# /ith it the ac4uittal of the /oman because, among other reasons, the man ma#not have 8no/n that the /oman /as married(

+nother assignment of error is that the husband /as not competent to give testimon# as to the pregnanc# of the/ife( +s a general rule, the husband can testif# against the /ife in an adulter# case because /hile adulter# is inone sense a public crime, it can onl# be prosecuted /ith a fe/ exceptions on the complaint of the aggrieve part#(+dulter# /ould therefore come /ithin the provisions of section 3=3, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil

rocedure, as amended, as an action for a crime committed b# the /ife against the husband( "hether /e canstretch the proviso to cover the testimon# of the husband /ho expresses an opinion as to the pregnanc# of the/ife is doubtful, /hich, ho/ever, in this instance can be /aived /ithout decision(

1'



G.R. No. 112))3 Janua! 2(, 2002

"ORDAL"A vs( $OURT O5 APPEAL4, E&R4 O5 N&$ANOR JA#ME 7

namel#, $AND&DA 5LORE4, EMANNUEL JA#ME, D&NA JA#ME DEJORA4, EEL&AJA#ME, an GE4&LA JA#ME: AND E&R4 O5 A4UN$&ON JA#ME-"A$LA#, namel#,ANGELO JA#ME-"A$LA#, $ARMEN JA#ME-DA$LAN an ELNORA

JA#ME "A$LA#This is a petition for revie/ under Rule .) of the Rules of Court see8ing to set aside the *ctober 2', 1--26ecision of the Court of +ppeals1 in C+7!(R( C; ?o( 2.1-, /hich affirmed /ith modification the6ecision2 of the Regional Trial Court of <andaue, Branch 2=, in Civil Case ?o( <+?73=&(

The instant controvers# stemmed from >ot ?o( 12.2 >ot ?o( --7CD /ith an area of 1,=)3 s4uare meters andlocated at Barrio >ooc, <andaue Cit#( The sub$ect lot is part of a parcel of land situated on the corner of <abiniand laridel %treets in <andaue Cit#, and originall# o/ned b# the late spouses Carmeno :a#me and <argaritaEspina de :a#me( In 1-., an extra7$udicial partition,3 /ritten in the %panish language /as executed, anddisposing, inter alia( the same parcel of land as follo/s0

1D 1@3 in favor of 7 aD their grandchild ?icanor :a#me, the deceased spouse of private respondentCandida lores and the father of private respondents Emmanuel, 6ina, Evelia and !esila, all surnamed

:a#me5 and bD their grandchild +suncion :a#me7Bacla#, /hose heirs are private respondents +gelioBacla#, Elnora Bacla# and Carmen :a#me76aclan5

2D 1@3 to their daughter Elena :a#me ;da( de ere, mother of petitioner Teresita ( Bordalba5 and

3D 1@3 to an unidentified part#(

Built on the land ad$udicated to the heirs of the spouses is ?icanor :a#me9s house, /hich his famil# occupiedsince 1-.)(

%ometime in :ul# 1-&., Elena :a#me ;da( de ere, petitioner9s mother, filed /ith the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch I;, an amended application for the registration) of the lot described /ith the follo/ing boundaries0

? 7 ruelana :a#me L Road

% 7 elicitas de >atonioE 7 +gustin de :a#me

" 7 orfirio :a#me, >ot ?o( 1 and ;ivencio +bellana

Elena :a#me ;da( de ere alleged that the lot sought to be registered /as originall# a part of a land o/ned b#her late parents, the spouses Carmeno :a#me and <argarita Espina de :a#me5 and that 1@3 of said land /asad$udicated to her in an extra7$udicial partition( %he further stated that a portion of the lot for /hich title isapplied for is occupied b# ?icanor :a#me /ith her permission(

Conse4uentl#, ?icanor :a#me and +suncion :a#me7Bacla# filed their opposition& contending that saidapplication included the 1@3 portion inherited b# them in the 1-. extra7$udicial partition( The case /as,ho/ever, dismissed for lac8 of interest of the parties(

%ubse4uentl#, petitioner filed /ith the Bureau of >ands of Cebu Cit# an application dated :anuar# 1', 1--,see8ing the issuance of a ree atent over the same lot sub$ect of the aborted application of her mother, Elena:a#me, no/ 8no/n as >ot ?o( 12.2 --7CD, described as follo/s0

?orth0 roilan :a#me and Road

East0 +gustin :a#me

%outh0 +lfredo +livio and %pouses ilario !andecila

"est0 ilario !andecila orferio :a#me and eirs of ;evencio +bellanosa=

*n +pril 1&, 1-=', petitioner /as successfull# granted ree atent ?o( ;II7ID 11.21 and *riginal Certificate of

Title ?o( '7)1 D over said lot(- Thereafter, petitioner caused the subdivision and titling of >ot ?o( 12.2--7CD, into & lots,1' as /ell as the disposition of t/o parcels thereof, thus0

1D >ot ?o( 12.27+ /ith an area of )=1 s4uare meters covered b# Transfer Certificate of Title ?o( 221D in the name of spouses !enaro A( Cabahug and Rita Capala, to /hom petitioner sold said lot5

11

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_112443_2002.html#fnt1




















2D >ot ?o( 12.27B /ith an area of .2' s4uare meters covered b# TCT ?o( 222 in the name of Teresita ( Bordalba, and /hich the latter mortgaged /ith the Rural Ban8 of <andaue5

3D >ot ?o( 12.27C /ith an area of 21' s4uare meters covered b# TCT 223 in the name of Teresita (Bordalba5

.D >ot ?o( 12.276 /ith an area of 21' s4uare meters covered b# TCT 22. in the name of Teresita

Bordalba5

)D >ot ?o( 12.27E /ith an area of 21& s4uare meters covered b# TCT 22) in the name of Teresita (Bordalba5

&D >ot ?o( 12.27 /ith an area of 21& s4uare meters and covered b# TCT ?o( 22& in the name of

Teresita ( Bordalba(

Apon learning of the issuance in favor of petitioner of the aforesaid ree atent and *riginal Certificate of Titleover >ot ?o( 12.2, as /ell as the conve#ances made b# petitioner involving the lot sub$ect of the controvers#, private respondents filed /ith the Regional Trial Court of <andaue Cit#, Branch 2=, the instant complaint

against petitioner Teresita Bordalba, spouses !enaro A( Cabahug, and Rita Capala, Rural Ban8 of <andaue andthe 6irector of the Bureau of >ands(

In the said complaint, private respondents pra#ed that ree atent ?o( ;II7ID 11.21 and *CT ?o( '7)1 D,

as /ell as TCT ?os( 221722& be declared void and ordered cancelled( rivate respondents also pra#ed thatthe# be ad$udged o/ners of >ot ?o( 12.2 --7CD, and that spouses !enaro ;( Cabahug and Rita Capala as /ellas the Rural Ban8 of <andaue be declared bu#ers and mortgagee in bad faith, respectivel#( In addition, the#as8ed the court to a/ard them actual, compensator#, and moral damages plus attorne#9s fees in the amount of 2','''(''(

etitioner, on the other hand, averred that >ot ?o( 12.2 --7CD /as ac4uired b# her through purchase from her mother ,11/ho /as in possession of the lot in the concept of an o/ner since 1-.( In her ans/er, petitioner traced her mother9s o/nership of the lot partl# from the 1-. deed of extra7$udicial partition presented b# private respondents,12 and claimed that ?icanor :a#me, and Candida lores occupied a portion of >ot ?o( 12.2

--7CD b# mere tolerance of her mother( *n cross7examination, petitioner admitted that the properties of thelate Carmeno :a#me and <argarita Espina de :a#me /ere partitioned b# their heirs in 1-., but claimed that she/as not a/are of the existence of said 6eed of Extra7$udicial artition( %he, ho/ever, identified one of the

signatures in the said 6eed to be the signature of her mother(13*n <a# 2=, 1--', the trial court, finding that fraud /as emplo#ed b# petitioner in obtaining ree atent ?o(;II7ID 11.21 and *CT ?o( '7)1 D, declared said patent and title void and ordered its cancellation(o/ever, it declared that spouses !enaro A( Cabahug and Rita Capala as /ell as the Rural Ban8 of <andaueare purchasers and mortgagee in good faith, respectivel#5 and conse4uentl# upheld as valid the sale of >ot ?o(12.27+ covered b# Transfer Certificate of Title ?o( 221 D to spouses !enaro A( Cabahug and Rita Capala,

and the mortgage of >ot ?o( 12.27B covered b# TCT ?o( 222 in favor of the Rural Ban8 of <andaue(

Both petitioner Teresita Bordalba and private respondents appealed to the Court of +ppeals, /hich affirmed /ithmodification the decision of the trial court( It ruled that since private respondents are entitled onl# to 1@3 portion

of >ot ?o( 12.2 --7CD, petitioner should be ordered to reconve# 1@3 of >ot ?o( 12.2 --7CD to privaterespondents( The decretal portion of the respondent courts decision states0

"ERE*RE, the challenged decision is <*6IIE6 to order the reconve#ance of one7third of the

sub$ect land in favor of the plaintiff7appellees in lieu of the cancellation of the Certificates of Titleissued and their declaration as the o/ners of >ot ?o( 12.2 in its entiret#( The rest is+IR<E6 in toto(

%* *R6ERE6(1)

Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition, assailing the decision of the Court of +ppeals( etitioner contends thatthe testimonies given b# the /itnesses for private respondents /hich touched on matters occurring prior to the

death of her mother should not have been admitted b# the trial court, as the same violated the dead man9sstatute( >i8e/ise, petitioner 4uestions the right of private respondents to inherit from the late ?icanor :a#me and+suncion :a#me7Bacla#, as /ell as the identit# bet/een the disputed lot and the parcel of land ad$udicated in the6eed of Extra7$udicial artition(

The contentions are /ithout merit( It is doctrinal that findings of facts of the Court of +ppeals upholding those

of the trial court are binding upon this Court( "hile there are exceptions to this rule, petitioner has notconvinced us that this case falls under one of them(1&

12













The Court sees no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court that petitioner resorted to fraud andmisrepresentation in obtaining a free patent and title over the lot under scrutin#( The Court of +ppeals correctl# pointed out that misrepresentation tainted petitioner9s application, insofar as her declaration that the land applied

for /as not occupied or claimed b# an# other person( er declaration is belied b# the extra7$udicial partition/hich she ac8no/ledged, her mother9s aborted attempt to have the lot registered, private respondents9 predecessors7in7interest9s opposition thereto, and b# the occupanc# of a portion of the said lot b# ?icanor :a#me

and his famil# since 1-.)(

It is a settled rule that the >and Registration +ct protects onl# holders of title in good faith, and does not permitits provision to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or as a means to enrich oneself at the expense of others(1

+s to the alleged violation of the dead man9s statute,1= suffice it to state that said rule finds no application in the present case( The dead man9s statute does not operate to close the mouth of a /itness as to an# matter of factcoming to his 8no/ledge in an# other /a# than through personal dealings /ith the deceased person, or communication made b# the deceased to the /itness(1-

%ince the claim of private respondents and the testimon# of their /itnesses in the present case is based, inter

alia( on the 1-. 6eed of Extra7$udicial artition and other documents, and not on dealings and communications/ith the deceased, the 4uestioned testimonies /ere properl# admitted b# the trial court(

13







Documents

Evid Case Digests