DOCTRINES/PRINCPLES: LTL Cases 4. Gamido vs.
CA
The High Court noted that the witness, owing to
COMPONENTS OF LEGAL his long position as custodian of the records of
REASONING Malacanang Palace, is very well familiar not only
of the signature of the sitting president but the
1. Philippine British Assurance vs. signatures of previous presidents he had the
Intermediate Appellate Court privilege of serving under.
The rule, founded on logic, is a colorally
principle that general words and phrases in a It is also declared that under the Rules of Court,
statute should ordinarly be accorded their it is not required that the person identifying the
natural and general significance. handwriting of another must have seen the latter
write the document or sign it, but it is enough, if
2. People vs. Cabral the witness has seen purporting to be the
In reiterating the rules outlining the duties of a subject’s upon which it has acted or been
judge in determining the merit of an application charged.
for bail, it is observed that respondent judge did
disregard certain pieces of evidence for the
prosecution which should have been
considered. This is a clear case of non sequitur
where the order of the respondent judge was not
arrived at as a product of a logical process as
prescribed by the Rules.
3. People vs. Escobar
The Supreme Court said, “Every decision of a
court of record shall clearly and distinctly state
the facts and the law on which it is based” and
that the decision of the lower court failed on this
standard. “The inadequacy stems primarily from
the respondent’s judge tendency to generalize
and to form conclusions without detailing the
facts from which conclusion are deduced. Thus,
he concluded that the mataerial allegations of
the Amendend Information were the facts
without specifying which of the testimonies or
exhibits supported this conclusion. He rejected
the testimony of accused appelant Escober
because it awas allegedly replete with
contradictions without pointing out what there
contradictions consist of or what “vital details”
Escober shoud have recalled as a credible
witness.
Page 1 of 10
BURDEN OF PROOF
7. Aba vs. De Guzman
According to the equipoise doctrine, when the
1. Penalber vs. Ramos evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or
Burden oif proof is the duty of any party to there is doubt on which side the evidence
present evidence to establish his claim or preponderates, the decision should be against
defense by the amount of evidence required by the party with the burden of proof.
the law, which is preponderance of evidence in
civil case. 8. OCA vs. Gutierrez
The burden of proof is upon the party who
2. MOF Company vs. Shin Yang alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any
Brokerage fact in issue.
Basic is the rule in evidence the burden of proof
lies upon him who asserts it, not upon who
denies, since by the nature of thinfs, he who
denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.
3. VSD Realty vs. Uniwide Sales
In civil cases, the specific rule as to the burden
of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of
proving the material allegations of the
complainant which are denied by the answer;
and the defendant has the burden of proving the
material allegations in his answer, which sets up
the new matter as a defense.
4. Monticalbo vs. Maraya
In administrative proceedings, the burden of
proof that respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant.
5. Cereno vs. CA
In medical negligences, it is settled that the
complainant has the burden of establishing
breach of duty on the part of the doctors or
surgeons. It must be proven the such breach of
duty has a causal connection to the resulting
death of the patient.
6. Claravall vs. Lim
It is settled that the party alleging a fact has the
burden of proving it and mere allegation is not
evidence.
Page 2 of 10
EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
1. Country Bankers Insurance 1. People vs. De Guzman
Corporation vs. Lagman Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to
The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule the issue and more importantly, if it is not
130, Sec 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of
Procedure applies only when the content of such Court. As to relevance, such evidence must
document is the subject of the inquiry. have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
When the issues is only as to whether such induce belief in its existence and non-existence.
documenta was actually executed, or exists, or Evidence to be believed must proceed not only
on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
its execution, the best evidence rule does not credible in itself as to hurdle the test of
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. conformity with the knowledge and common
Moreover, under the best evidence rule, the experience of mankind.
original document must be produced whenever
its contents are the subject of inquiry; A
photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is
not admissible unless it is shown that the
original is unavailable.
2. Gaw vs. Chua
Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
admissible without need to acount for the
original. Moreover, production of the original
may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s
discretion, whenever the opponent does not
bona fide dispute the contents of the document
and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production.
3. Ramos vs. Obispo
Note, however, that preponderance of evidence
is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term
“greater weight of the evidence” or “greater
weight of the credible evidence”
Page 3 of 10
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES EXAMINATION
1. People vs. Taguibaya 1. People vs. Malngan
Testimony is generally confined to a personal The credibility given by trial courts to
knowledge, and therefore excludes hearsay. prosecution witness is an important aspect of
Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts evidence which appelate courts can rely on
which he knows of his personal knowledge because of its unique opportunity to observe
which are derived from his own perception, them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
except as otherwise provided under the Rules of attitude, during the direct and cross-examination
Court. by counsels.
The direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor 2. People vs. Astudillo
during examination, veracity, sincerity, and This is because the trial judge has unique
candor was foremost the trial court’s domain, not opportunity, denied to the appelate court, to
that of a reviewing court that had no similar observe the witnesses and to note their
access to the witness at the time they testified. demeanor, conduct and attitude under direct and
cross-examination.
2. People vs. Ochoa
This is known as the hearsay rule. The law,
however, provides for specific exceptions to the
hearsay rule. One of the exceptions is the
entries in official records made in the
performance of duty by a public officer. In other
words, official entries are admissible in evidence
regardless whether the officer or person who
made them was presented and testified in court,
since these entries are considered prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. Other
recognized reason for this exception are
necessity and trustworthiness. The necesity
consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of
requiring the official’s attendnace as a witness to
testify the innumerable transactions in the
course of his duty. This will also unduly hamper
public business. The trustworthiness consists in
the presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty by a public officer.
Page 4 of 10
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS 5. Nielson and Co. vs. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining
1. Santiago vs. Valenzuela The rule of stare decisis cannot be invoked
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Srand by when there is no analogy between the material
the decisions and disturb not what is settled. facts of the decision relied upon and those of the
instant case.
2. Lambino vs. Comelec
The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere 6. Republic vs. Nillas
translates “stand by the decisions and disturb The doctrine of stare decisis compels respect for
not what is settled.” As used in our settled jurisprudence, especially absent any
jurisprudence, it means that once this court has compelling argument to do otherwise.
laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it would adhere to that 7. Pesca vs. Pesca
principle and apply it to future cases in which the The high court found no merit in the petition.
facts are substantially the same as in the earlier Stated Art 8, NCC. Legis interpretado legis vim
controversy. There is considerable literature obtinet – that the interpretation placed upon the
about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is a written law by a competent court has the force of
good or bad one, whether this doctrine is usually law. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court
justified by arguments which focus on the finds itself later overruled, and a different view is
desirability of stability and certainty in the law adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be
and also by notions of justice and fairness. It applied prospectively in favor of the parties who
would be a gross injustice to decide alternate have reliaed on the old doctrine and have acted
cases on opposite princoples. in good faith in accordance therewith under the
familiar rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit”.
3. Ting vs. Velez-Ting 8. Fermin vs. People
The doctrine of adherence to precedents or It is based on the principle that once a question
stare decisis was applied by the English courts of law has been examined and decided, it
and was later adopted by the United States. should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument.
4. Chong vs. Secretary of Labor
This is the doctrine that, when a court has once
laid down a principle, and apply it to all future
cases, where facts are substantially the same,
regardless of whether the parties and properties
are the same. Follow past precedents and do
not distrub what has been settled. Matters
alread decided on the merits cannot be subject
of litigation again. But note that this rule does
nor elicit blind adherence to the precedents.
Page 5 of 10
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PROOF & EVIDENCE
People v Manalansan
Sy v CA
We note that their marriage certificate and Finally, we come to the credibility of the
marriage license are only photocopies. So are witnesses. We have held in numerous cases
the birth certificates of their son Frederick and that the evaluation of the witnesses by the trial
daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these court is received on appeal with the highest
documents were marked as Exhibits during the respect because it is the trial court that has the
direct opportunity to observe them on the stand
course of the trial below, which shows that these
and detect if they are telling the truth or lying in
have been examined and admitted by the trial their teeth. That assessment is accepted as
court, with no objections having been made as correct by the appellate court-is indeed binding
to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, upon it-in the absence of a clear showing that it
no objection was interposed to petitioner's was reached arbitrarily.
testimony in open court when she affirmed that
the date of the actual celebration of their There is no such showing in the case at bar.
While it may be conceded that there are a
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of
number of inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the view, therefore, that having been admitted the prosecution witness , they are not in our
in evidence, with the adverse party failing to view substantial enough to impair the veracity of
timely object thereto, these documents are the prosecution evidence of how the two crimes
deemed sufficient proof of the facts were committed by the accused-appellant. The
contained therein. maxim falsus in unus falsus in omnibus does
not lay down a categorical test of credibility.
While witnesses may differ in their recollections
(In Atty.’s words, BER can be waived if you did
of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from
not react during trial.) their disagreements that all of them should be
disbelieved as liars and their testimonies
MCC Industrial Sales v. S SANYONG completely discarded as worthless.
CORPORATION
The testimony of the accused-appellant is
The terms "electronic data message" and another matter. There is no proof whatever of
"electronic document," as defined under the his alleged manhandling; he did not present any
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not medical certificate of his supposed injuries, and
include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, neither did he complain to the prosecutor before
a facsimile transmission cannot be considered whom he says he subscribed a document which,
as electronic evidence. It is not the functional incidentally, was never presented in court by
equivalent of an original under the Best either the prosecution or the defense. And the
Evidence Rule and is not admissible motive he imputes to the prosecution witnesses
as electronic evidence. is not credible either as even his own witness
who was expected to corroborate his assertions
Since a facsimile transmission is not an actually belied them.
"electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with greater
reason is a photocopy of such fax transmission
not electronic evidence.
Page 6 of 10
BURDEN OF PROOF PREPONDERANCE OF
SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC. V CA
EVIDENCE
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence to establish his claim or defense by the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
amount of evidence required by law, which is CONSTRUCTION CORP v MANDAGAN
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. 9 The
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests
party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of upon the employer to show that the dismissal of
proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the the employee is for just or authorized cause.
defendant, an affirmative defense is one Failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is
which is not a denial of an essential not justified. This is consonant with the
ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, guarantee of security of tenure in the
but one which, if established, will be a good Constitution20 and reiterated in the Labor
defense - i.e. an "avoidance" of the claim.
Code.21 A dismissed employee is not required to
GAMBOA v CA prove his innocence of the charges leveled
against him by his employer. Likewise, the
Allegations in the complaint must be duly proven determination of the existence and sufficiency of
by competent evidence and the burden of proof a just cause is to be exercised with fairness and
is on the party making the allegation. in good faith and after observing due process.
CALALAS v CA
In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be
clearly established because it is the basis of the
action, whereas in breach of contract, the action
can be prosecuted merely by proving the
existence of the contract and the fact that the
obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to
transport his passenger safely to his
destination.2 In case of death or injuries to
passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides
that common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently
unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733
and 1755 of the Code. This provision
necessarily shifts to the common carrier the
burden of proof.
Page 7 of 10
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
BAUTISTA v SARMIENTO
There is no denying that in a criminal case,
unless the guilt of the accused is established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to
an acquittal. But when the trial court denies
petitioners' motion to dismiss by way of
demurrer to evidence on the ground that the
prosecution had established a prima facie case
against them, they assume a definite burden. It
becomes incumbent upon petitioners to adduce
evidence to meet and nullify, if not overthrow,
the prima facie case against them. 7 This is due
to the shift in the burden of evidence, and not of
the burden of proof as petitioners would seem to
believe.
When a prima facie case is established by the
prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at
bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the
defense. It remains throughout the trial with the
party upon whom it is imposed—the
prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which
shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the
trial. 8 This burden of going forward with the
evidence is met by evidence which balances
that introduced by the prosecution. Then the
burden shifts back.
A prima facie case need not be countered by a
preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of
greater weight. Defendant's evidence which
equalizes the weight of plaintiff's evidence or
puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a
result, plaintiff will have to go forward with the
proof. Should it happen that at the trial the
weight of evidence is equally balanced or at
equilibrium and presumptions operate against
plaintiff who has the burden of proof, he cannot
prevail. 9
Page 8 of 10
EQUIPOISE RULE If doubts exist between the evidence
presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted
PEOPLE V SATURNO
in favor of the latter — the employer must
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances affirmatively show rationally adequate
are capable of two or more explanations one of evidence that the dismissal was for a
which is consistent with the innocence of the justifiable cause.70 It is a time-honored rule that
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, in controversies between a laborer and his
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of master, doubts reasonably arising from the
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements
conviction.46 The equipoise rule provides that and writing should be resolved in the former's
where the evidence in a criminal case is favor.71 The policy is to extend the doctrine to a
evenly balanced, the constitutional greater number of employees who can avail of
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in the benefits under the law, which is in
favor of the accused.47 consonance with the avowed policy of the State
to give maximum aid and protection of labor.
VELEZ v. PEOPLE
We have said that it is better to acquit ten guilty
individuals than to convict one innocent
person.14 Every circumstance against guilt and in
favor of innocence must be considered. 15 Where
the evidence admits of two interpretations, one
of which is consistent with guilt, and the other
with innocence, the accused must be given the
benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. 16 In the
instant case, while it is possible that the accused
has committed the crime, there is also the
possibility, based on the evidence presented,
that he has not. He should be deemed to have
not for failure to meet the test of moral certainty.
Finally, an accused should not be convicted
by reason of the weakness of his alibi. It is
fundamental that the prosecution must prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt and must
not rely on the weakness of the evidence of
the defense.
MAYON HOTEL v ADARNA SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Page 9 of 10
ALCUIZAR v CARPIO
PEOPLE v SULAYAO
In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the
burden of proving the allegations in the By its very nature, an "admission is the mere
complaint rests on the complainant. 11 While acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstance
substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of
where the proceedings involve judges charged itself to establish his guilt." 22 In other words, it
with grave offense. Administrative is a "statement by defendant of fact or facts
proceedings against judges are, by nature, pertinent to issues pending, in connection with
highly penal in character and are to be proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove
governed by the rules applicable to criminal guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to
cases. The quantum of proof required to support authorize conviction." 23 From the above
the administrative charges or to establish the principles, this Court can infer that an
ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer admission in criminal cases is insufficient to
should thus be more than substantial; they must prove beyond reasonable doubt the
be proven beyond reasonable doubt. commission of the crime charged.
GUTIERREZ v BELEN
Administrative charges against members of
the judiciary must be supported at least by
substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.
The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of
imposing discipline upon erring members of the
bench. At the same time, however, the Court
should not hesitate to shield them from
unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather
than promote the orderly administration of
justice. This Court could not be the instrument
that would destroy the reputation of any member
of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere
speculation
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT
Page 10 of 10