THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs

MODESTO CABUANG y FLORES, NARDO MATABANG y SALVADOR, JOHN DOE and RICHARD DOE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

G.R. No. 103292 January 27, 1993

FACTS:

Evelyn De Vera and her cousin Maria Victoria Parana, both 19 years of age, having come from a house of a common friend, were walking home along an uninhabited place in Bayambang, Pangasinan.

Suddenly, from out of the rice paddies along the road, Modesto Cabuang emerged with a flashlight and asked them where they were going. Evelyn became very anxious and started walking faster. Upon the other hand, Maria Victoria started talking to Modesto.

When Evelyn was about ten (10) feet ahead of the two, she looked back and saw Modesto the figure of Nardo Matabang, who had also suddenly appeared behind them from the rice fields alongside the road. Modesto then grabbed Maria Victoria and covered her mouth. Nardo Matabang in turn pursued Evelyn, who had started to run away. She ran and ran until she entered the yard of a house along the road and hid in the shadows of the plants and shrubs inside the yard. After some time, having lost sight of Evelyn, Nardo went back and rejoined Modesto.

Sometime later, Evelyn from her hiding place saw a tricycle pass by with her cousin, the two accused, the tricycle driver and another person who was seated at the back of the tricycle. Evelyn heard her cousin crying and pleading for help. After the tricycle had passed by, Evelyn emerged from her hiding place and proceeded to the house of her sister. There she was scolded by her sister for coming home late.

Evelyn, confused by the scolding and frightened by what she had just seen and experienced, was not able to tell her sister what had just occurred.

The following morning, Maria Victoria was found dead along the road. The police investigator, who initially questioned witness De Vera that morning, noticed that she was in a state of shock. He accordingly chose to defer further questioning until the afternoon of the same day when Evelyn had calmed down sufficiently to be able to give a sworn statement to the police. Thus, there was the initial report prepared and recorded in the police blotter at around 11 o'clock in the morning, stating that the assailants were still unidentified. Evelyn de Vera's sworn statement made and completed in the afternoon of the same day, where she revealed the identities of the men she had seen the night before and who she believed were responsible for the rape and death of her cousin Maria Victoria.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the police blotter regularly done in the course of performance of official duty are conclusive proof of the truth of such entries.

RULING:

It remains only to note that entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of performance of official duty are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. In People v. Santito, Jr.,this Court held that entries in official records like a police blotter are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein set out, since the entries in the police blotter could well be incomplete or inaccurate.

Testimony given in open court during the trial is commonly much more lengthy and detailed than the brief entries made in the police blotter and the trial court cannot base its findings on a police report merely, but must necessarily consider all other evidence gathered in the course of the police investigation and presented in court. In the case at bar, we conclude that prosecution witness Evelyn de Vera did positively and clearly identify Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang as among those who had raped and killed and robbed the hapless Maria Victoria Parana.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

RICARDO SAN GABRIEL y ORTIZ, defendant-appellant.

GR No. l 107735 FEBRUARY 1, 1996

FACTS:

At around seven o’clock in the evening of 26 November 1989, within the vicinity of Pier 14 at North Harbor along Marcos Road, Manila, a fistfight ensued between Jaime Tonog on one hand and the accused Ricardo San Gabriel together with Ramon Doe on the other. The fight was eventually broken up when onlookers pacified the protagonists. Ricardo and Ramon then hastened towards Marcos Road but in no time were back with bladed weapons. They approached Tonog surreptitiously, surrounded him and simultaneously stabbed him in the stomach and at the back, after which the assailants ran towards the highway leaving Tonog behind on the ground. He was then brought to Mary Johnston Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. During the trial, the accused leans heavily on the Advance Information Sheet 6 prepared by Pat. Steve Casimiro which did not mention him at all and named only "Ramon Doe"

as the principal suspect.

ISSUES:

Whether the Advance Information Sheet is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.

RULING:

NO. Entries in official records, as in the case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not conclusive. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject. It is understandable that the testimony during the trial would be more lengthy and detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.

Significantly, the Advance Information Sheet was never formally offered by the defense during the proceedings in the court below. Hence any reliance by the accused on the document must fail since the court cannot consider any evidence which has not been formally offered. The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule, hence, inadmissible. The public officer who prepared the document had no sufficient and personal knowledge of the stabbing incident. Any information possessed by him was acquired from Camba, the alleged eyewitness who reported the crime to the police, which therefore could not be categorized as official information because in order to be classified as such the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for the record.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PETER TARAPEN y CHONGOY, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 173824 August 28, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged before the RTC of Baguio City with Frustrated Homicide for attacking and assaulting James Lacbao Pangoden. The day after, the victim died from the injuries he sustained. As a consequence, an amended information was filed charging petitioner with Homicide.

Patricia S. Pangoden testified on the events that happened to her husband from the time he was bought to the hospital until the time he died. She also testified on the expenses she incurred as a result of the incident.

The prosecution formally offered Exhibits "A" to "H," inclusive, with sub-markings which the trial court admitted.

The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Molly J. Linglingen, Silmana Linglingen and Virginia Costales as against the testimonies of defense witnesses Jimmy Pugoy, petitioner Peter Tarapen and Edmond Ferrer. The trial court found the prosecution’s version of the incident credible. The trial court said Virginia Costales saw the first part of the incident, which was the heated argument between petitioner and the victim involving the victim’s soiled goods, while Molly J.

Linglingen and Silmana Linglingen witnessed the second part of the incident when petitioner went to the back portion of the garbage truck and got a shovel with which he hit the victim from the back, twice on the head, resulting in his death. Having had the opportunity to observe them, it was convinced that they were telling the truth vis-à-vis the defense witnesses who were lying, as can be seen from their hesitant answers and evasive looks when they testified for the petitioner who was a co-employee.

However, two seemingly conflicting medico-legal certificates were presented.

ISSUE:

Whether a medical certificate issued, corroborated by other evidence, is sufficient to establish the facts of a crime.

RULING:

Yes. This Court believes in the findings made by Dr. Cala as contained in the medico-legal certificate he issued showing that the victim suffered injuries on the right side of his head, consistent with the declarations of prosecution witnesses that the victim was, from behind, struck with a shovel twice on the right side of the head. We give more weight to this medical certificate, because the same was issued by a government doctor. By actual practice, only government physicians, by virtue of their oaths as civil service officials, are competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates which will be used by the government. As such, the medical certificate carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions and duties. Moreover, under Section 44, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Dr. Cala’s findings that the victim sustained injuries on the right side of his head are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in this case. We cannot consider the contents of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mensalvas sufficient to controvert the findings of Dr.

Cala. As held by this Court, an unverified medical certificate not issued by a government physician is unreliable.

Even assuming arguendo that we give more weight to the medical certificate issued by Dr.

Mensalvas, this does not mean that the testimonies of Molly and Silmana Linglingen shall be disbelieved.

It is noted that Dr. Mensalvas testified that the victim sustained a wound on the right side of his head, possibly caused by a steel shovel. Such a finding is consistent with the claim of Molly and Silmana Linglingen that the victim was hit on the right side of the head. Though there can be inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witnesses with Dr. Mensalvas’s other findings (i.e., injuries on the left portion of the head) this does not mean that we should totally doubt and discard the other portions of their testimonies.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

JERRY VALEROSO, accused;

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESS, complainant.

G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was found liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City. On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for ransom.

Valeroso was found and arrested in INP Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily searched and after which a firearm with live ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The subject firearm was later verified by the Firearms and Explosive Division

at Camp Crame and was confirmed and revealed to havenot been issued to the petitioner but to another person. The defense on the other hand contended that Valeroso was arrested and searched in the boarding house of his children in New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns on him and pulled him out of the room as the raiding team went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments later an operative came out of the room exclaiming that he has found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant to the adjacent room testified for the defense. SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by virtue of a Memorandum Receipt.

The petitioner was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same. Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of illegalilty of the search and the admissibility and validity of the evidence obtained as the same was the “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.

RULING:

From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied.

To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.

Hence, the evidence presented by the prosecution cannot be admitted in evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________________________