Evidence R132 S10-34

(1)

Evidence |

RULE 132 SEC. 10

RULE 132 SEC. 10 - LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS

- LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS

1.

1. PEOPLE PEOPLE V. V. CAPARASCAPARAS

DOCTRINE: DOCTRINE:

The probative value of a witness' testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained The probative value of a witness' testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to be question.

be question.

(There are more allegations and so on, but these are the only facts as well as issue (There are more allegations and so on, but these are the only facts as well as issue relating to the topic)

relating to the topic) FACTS:

FACTS:

This case concerns the two motions for reconsideration for the decision dated 20 This case concerns the two motions for reconsideration for the decision dated 20 February 1980 convicting Caparas and

February 1980 convicting Caparas and Diamsay for the killing Simeon Patricio.Diamsay for the killing Simeon Patricio. As

As regards regards appellanappellant t Caparas, Caparas, the the motions motions for for reconsidreconsideration eration seek seek the the review review of of thethe testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Laureano Salvador and Lydia Posadas, upon testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Laureano Salvador and Lydia Posadas, upon which said appellant was convicted, on ground of conspiracy between him and Diamsay. which said appellant was convicted, on ground of conspiracy between him and Diamsay. Caparas points out some facts and circumstances which are alleged to impair the Caparas points out some facts and circumstances which are alleged to impair the credibility of the aforesaid witnesses and thereby leaves the fact of conspiracy unproven credibility of the aforesaid witnesses and thereby leaves the fact of conspiracy unproven beyond reasonable doubt as it should be.

beyond reasonable doubt as it should be.

Thus, Caparas points out that Laureano's testimony was extracted through leading Thus, Caparas points out that Laureano's testimony was extracted through leading questions, and he quotes:

questions, and he quotes: Q Do you know the

Q Do you know the purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your house?purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your house? A Yes,

A Yes, sir.sir.

Q What was his purpose? Q What was his purpose? A Rega

A Regarding the rding the landholdlandholding I waing I was farming s farming and his and his help I rehelp I requestedquested.. Q Did you go to

Q Did you go to any place with Carlos Gregorio after that?any place with Carlos Gregorio after that? A Yes,

A Yes, sir.sir. Q Where? Q Where? A To his

A To his house.house.

Q You are referring to the house o

Q You are referring to the house o f Carlos Gregorio?f Carlos Gregorio?

A Yes, A Yes, sir.sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q When you

(2)

Evidence |

A Carlos

A Carlos Gregorio, Gregorio, sir.sir. Q Who were the

Q Who were the persons, ff any, that you have seen at persons, ff any, that you have seen at the house of Carlos Gregorio?the house of Carlos Gregorio? A

A Eufemio Caparas Eufemio Caparas and Diamand Diamsay, sir.say, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q

Q Now, Now, when when you you arrived arrived in in that that house, house, what what happened?happened? A We t

A We talked regalked regarding tarding the landhe landholding, holding, sir.sir. Q You said, 'we' to whom a

Q You said, 'we' to whom a re you referring?re you referring?

A Eufe

A Eufemio Capamio Caparas, sir.ras, sir. Q What did you

Q What did you talk about that landholding?talk about that landholding? A

A RegardinRegarding g the the landholdlandholding ing which which he he said said would would be be given given to to me. me. He He said said there there isis already one.

already one.

Q And what did you

Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by answer when this was said to you by Eufemio Caparas?Eufemio Caparas? A

A I saI said, 'id, 'if thif there ere is, I is, I give give thanks', thanks', but but he he said said that that the the land land he he was was giving giving me me had had somesome trouble.

trouble.

Q And what did you say? Q And what did you say? A I said

A I said' that se' that seems hardems hard',but h',but he said,'the said,'th at is easyat is easy'.'. Q What else transpired?

Q What else transpired? A

A I asked I asked him him what what he he meant meant by by easy easy and and he he said said 'it 'it is is easy easy under under this this conditioncondition',', and I asked him what condition, and he

and I asked him what condition, and he said you kill him.said you kill him.

Q During all that time, who were present inside that house? Q During all that time, who were present inside that house? A Tisio Dia

A Tisio Diamsay.msay.

Q Who else? Q Who else? A Eufe

A Eufemio Capamio Caparas, sir.ras, sir. Q Anybody else?

Q Anybody else? A Carting

A Carting Gregorio, Gregorio, sir.sir. Q And you?

Q And you? A

A I was present.I was present.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been testifying, you said, Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been testifying, you said, 'Patayin n'yo, means plural, do you know to whom

(3)

Evidence |

A Carlos

A Carlos Gregorio, Gregorio, sir.sir. Q Who were the

Q Who were the persons, ff any, that you have seen at persons, ff any, that you have seen at the house of Carlos Gregorio?the house of Carlos Gregorio? A

A Eufemio Caparas Eufemio Caparas and Diamand Diamsay, sir.say, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q

Q Now, Now, when when you you arrived arrived in in that that house, house, what what happened?happened? A We t

A We talked regalked regarding tarding the landhe landholding, holding, sir.sir. Q You said, 'we' to whom a

Q You said, 'we' to whom a re you referring?re you referring?

A Eufe

A Eufemio Capamio Caparas, sir.ras, sir. Q What did you

Q What did you talk about that landholding?talk about that landholding? A

A RegardinRegarding g the the landholdlandholding ing which which he he said said would would be be given given to to me. me. He He said said there there isis already one.

already one.

Q And what did you

Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by answer when this was said to you by Eufemio Caparas?Eufemio Caparas? A

A I saI said, 'id, 'if thif there ere is, I is, I give give thanks', thanks', but but he he said said that that the the land land he he was was giving giving me me had had somesome trouble.

trouble.

Q And what did you say? Q And what did you say? A I said

A I said' that se' that seems hardems hard',but h',but he said,'the said,'th at is easyat is easy'.'. Q What else transpired?

Q What else transpired? A

A I asked I asked him him what what he he meant meant by by easy easy and and he he said said 'it 'it is is easy easy under under this this conditioncondition',', and I asked him what condition, and he

and I asked him what condition, and he said you kill him.said you kill him.

Q During all that time, who were present inside that house? Q During all that time, who were present inside that house? A Tisio Dia

A Tisio Diamsay.msay.

Q Who else? Q Who else? A Eufe

A Eufemio Capamio Caparas, sir.ras, sir. Q Anybody else?

Q Anybody else? A Carting

A Carting Gregorio, Gregorio, sir.sir. Q And you?

Q And you? A

A I was present.I was present.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been testifying, you said, Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been testifying, you said, 'Patayin n'yo, means plural, do you know to whom

(4)

Evidence |

A He wa

A He was ordering s ordering me, Carlingme, Carling, and T, and Tisio Diamsaisio Diamsay,sir.y,sir. Q Ordering to what?

Q Ordering to what? A

A To kill.To kill.

Q To kill Simeon Paez? Q To kill Simeon Paez? A Yes,

A Yes, sir.sir.

ISSUE:

ISSUE: W/N the testimony of Laureano may be appreciated in light of the leading W/N the testimony of Laureano may be appreciated in light of the leading questions

questions HELD: No. HELD: No.

We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano

We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano on the supposed conspiracyon the supposed conspiracy

was elicited by means of leading questions, the probative value of which, according to was elicited by means of leading questions, the probative value of which, according to accepted legal authorities, is thus diminished or lessened.

accepted legal authorities, is thus diminished or lessened.

The probative value of a witness' testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained The probative value of a witness' testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to be question.

be question.

To make matters worse, the credibility of Laureano Salvador was further assailed by the To make matters worse, the credibility of Laureano Salvador was further assailed by the court as it noted that it is not without significance that he was not listed in the information court as it noted that it is not without significance that he was not listed in the information to be among the prosecution witnesses. Only during the trial on June 2, 1973, and after to be among the prosecution witnesses. Only during the trial on June 2, 1973, and after more than two years after the commission of the crime, that he surfaced and testified on more than two years after the commission of the crime, that he surfaced and testified on what he allegedly knew about the crime. From his testimony, it would appear that he did what he allegedly knew about the crime. From his testimony, it would appear that he did not inform the authorities nor his relatives what he knew about the crime, and that it was not inform the authorities nor his relatives what he knew about the crime, and that it was only to Pablo Paez that he told his story about the crime, but only after almost two years only to Pablo Paez that he told his story about the crime, but only after almost two years after its commission. This fact in itself is contrary to human experience because the after its commission. This fact in itself is contrary to human experience because the natural reaction of one who has knowledge of the crime is to reveal it to the authorities, natural reaction of one who has knowledge of the crime is to reveal it to the authorities, except only if he is the author thereof. Indeed, as held in People vs. Basuel, the silence except only if he is the author thereof. Indeed, as held in People vs. Basuel, the silence of the witnesses for abou

of the witnesses for abou t two years detracts from their trustworthiness.t two years detracts from their trustworthiness.

This witness, of course, explained that his silence was due to his fear for his life, for This witness, of course, explained that his silence was due to his fear for his life, for which reason he went into

which reason he went into hiding in Dupax Nueva Viscaya, where he hiding in Dupax Nueva Viscaya, where he allegedly worked atallegedly worked at Diplong Sawmill. We cannot, however, give credence to this explanation, since counsel Diplong Sawmill. We cannot, however, give credence to this explanation, since counsel for appellant was not given the opportunity to cross examine Salvador Laureano on this for appellant was not given the opportunity to cross examine Salvador Laureano on this matter. It appears that this witness testified that while hiding in Dupax he worked in matter. It appears that this witness testified that while hiding in Dupax he worked in "Diplong Sawmill." But upon investigation by counsel for appellant, it was found out that "Diplong Sawmill." But upon investigation by counsel for appellant, it was found out that there is no Diplong Sawmill and because of this, counsel for appellant moved to cross there is no Diplong Sawmill and because of this, counsel for appellant moved to cross examine further the witness. But said witness failed to appear in the hearing despite examine further the witness. But said witness failed to appear in the hearing despite summons, until the court, after a third failure to appear, issued an order for his arrest. summons, until the court, after a third failure to appear, issued an order for his arrest.

(5)

Evidence | Atty. Custodio | November 22, 2014 | Rule 132 Sections 10 – 34

When the said witness finally appeared, counsel for appellant requested to postpone the cross examination on a very valid ground that he had another case which was earlier scheduled on the same date. The trial court, however, refused to postpone the cross examination. This, in Our opinion, is a prejudicial error on the part of the trial court, which should have granted the postponement. As it is, his testimony cannot but create some doubts in Our mind, specially as on his own admission, he never went to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal to inform the government prosecutors that he would be a witness in this case.

In the case of People vs. Maisug, this Court held that the conduct such as shown by the witness is unnatural and contrary to ordinary experience. Lawyers do not usually present witnesses without informing themselves regarding the facts that they would prove by the testimonies they would present in court.

RULE 132, SEC 13 - HOW WITNESS IS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE

1. US V. BALUYOT

Doctrine: Where an attorney desires to impeach a witness of the adversary by proof of contradictory statements, he should, in the cross examination of such witness, lay a basis for the introduction of the contradictory proof by asking the witness if he did not, at a time and place specified, make certain statements different from those testified to by him.

Facts:

(Note: below are just clarifications to the merits and are irrelevant to the subject matter) 1. In this case, Baluyot was convicted of the crime of murder for killing (using a

revolver) Bataan Gov. Conrado Lerma in the latter’s office. (Lerma had 3 gun shot wounds)

! Baluyot was an opponent of Lerma in the gubernatorial race wherein the

former came out 3rd.

! Baluyot had a pending case of estafa and was requested to resign as

captain of the National Guard which he did not but was thereafter temporarily relieved from the position pending investigation.

! Baluyot attributed these misfortunes to the machinations of Gov. Lerma.

! For this reason, he went to Gov. Lerma to asked him (Lerma) to leave him

(Baluyot) in peace.

2. From the testimonies given by the prosecution’s witnesses (Pedro Gonzales – the recorder, Antonino Aranjuez, and Gregorio de Guzman – the provincial assessor), the court irrefutably established that the first shot was fired within 9-10 seconds after Baluyot reentered the governor’s office.

! Note that they had a previous conversation but was interrupted to

accommodate other’s appointment and was resumed immediately thereafter.

(6)

! The court deduced that immediately upon asking the Governor about his

revolver, and discovering he was defenseless, Baluyot drew his own revolver and fired.

3. To establish treachery, the 3 witnesses also testified as to what took place between Baluyot and Gov. Lerma at the time when the two were alone in the office of the latter.

! However, they have not heard Baluyot and Gov. Lerma’s conversation as

they were in the anteroom (waiting room).

! Based upon a computation as to the time interval of the 3 shots heard, the

court adduced that the attacked was treacherous. At the trial: (Pertinent facts related to the subject matter)

4. The prosecution presented Gonzales, De Guzman, and Aranjuez as its witnesses who were in the secretary’s office when the crime took place.

5. Thereafter, they were cross-examined by the defense. 6. The defense presented its sundry witnesses.

7. Afterwards, but before Baluyot was placed upon the stand, the defense counsel made a request that the written declarations or statements made by the prosecution’s witnesses in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the fiscal preparatory to the prosecution should be produced.

8. The court denied the motion.

Issue: Whether the trial court was in error in refusing to compel the production of the written statements made by the prosecution’s witnesses with a view to impeach the declarants?

Held: NO!

The Court held that the trial court was not in error in refusing to compel the production of the documents in question. They were not original or independent evidence of such a character as to give the accused an unqualified right to compel their production, and no proper basis was laid in the cross-examination of the witnesses who had made those statements to justify their production with a view to the impeachment of the declarants. The request was of course based upon the supposition or expectation that if the statements of the witnesses before the fiscal were produced, they might be found to contain something different from what was contained in their testimony given in court. Moreover, such declarations pertain to the official file in the office of the public prosecutor and are not subject to production at the mere request of the attorney for the

accused where no ground therefor had been laid.1

1

The statements in question were not the sworn declarations of witnesses taken in conformity with the requirements of section 13 of General Orders, No 58, and which are commonly attached to the "expediente" transmitted by the committing magistrate to the Court of First Instance. In the case at bar the preliminary examination before the committing magistrate was waived by the accused, and the declarations of the witnesses for the prosecution were therefore not taken before the magistrate . The declarations referred to were, on the contrary, taken in an investigation conducted by the fiscal under the authority of section 1687 of the Administrative Code.With this, the fiscal is authorized to conduct an investigation into the matter of any crime or misdemeanor for the purpose of instituting or carrying on a criminal prosecution but not to act as a justice in any preliminary investigation. The proceeding is

(7)

RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER

The Court for the purpose of clarifying the practice in such matters explained the proper mode of proceeding in a case where a party wishes to get before the court contradictory statements made by a witness who is testifying for the adversary party.

The court explained that for instance, if the a ttorney for the accused had information that a certain witness, say Pedro Gonzales, had made and signed a sworn statement before the fiscal materially different from that given in his testimony before the court, it was incumbent upon the attorney when cross-examining said witness to direct his attention to the discrepancy and to ask him if he did not make such and such statement before the fiscal or if he did not there make a statement different from that delivered in court. If the witness admits the making of such contradictory statement, the accused has the benefit of the admission, while the witness has the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness denies making any such contradictory statement, the accused has the right to prove that the witness did make such statement; and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce the document, secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called in the practice of the American courts "laying a predicate" for the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the court.

The Court further explained that if the accused had, by affidavit or otherwise, made it appear to the satisfaction of the court that the witnesses named had made statements in their declarations before the fiscal materially at variance with their statements in court and that the production of said declarations was necessary or even desirable, in the interests of justice, the court would have had ample power to order their production. No such showing, or intimation, was made in this case; and the attorney who made the motion was merely angling at random to discover something that might prove to be favorable to his client. To put a court in error for refusing to entertain such a motion would encourage frivolous delays and tend to embarrass the speedy and proper administration of justice.

Dissenting opinion of Araullo: The crime committed by Baluyot is that of Homicide. (The opinion refuted several conclusions made by the majority not warranted by evidence presented.) - irrelevant to subject matter

2. PEOPLE V. RELUCIO

administrative in character, and the information thereby acquired is intended for the use of the fiscal in the conduct of the prosecution.

(8)

Doctrines:

" It is a basic postulate in the law on evidence that every witness is presumed to be

truthful and perjury is not to be readily inferred just because apparent inconsistencies are evinced in parts of his testimony. Every effort to reconcile the conflicting points should first be exerted before any adverse conclusion can be made therefrom. These considerations are at the base of the familiar rule requiring the laying of a predicate, which is essence means simply that it is the duty of a party trying to impugn the testimony of a witness by means of prior or, for that matter, subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oral or in writing, to give the witness a chance to reconcile his conflicting declarations, such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is given by him that he should be deemed impeached.

" The omission to object on the ground of failure to lay the predicate is waived by the

omission to interpose the same when the impeaching contradictory statement is offered. Nature: This case is an appeal from the judgment of conviction against appellant Rosendo Velasco of the crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Fourth Judicial District dated January 4, 1974.

Facts:

" Appellant was previously charged with murder in the court below, together with Federico

Relucio, alias "Pedring", Edri Pineda, Dante Ariola, Miguel Espejo Padrones. alias "Egi" Peter Doe and Richard Doe.

" Of the four witnesses in chief presented by the prosecution only two, Crispen Angeles

and Miguel Padrones, can be said to have given incriminatory evidence against appellant.

" There were material discrepancies between the testimony of Angeles in open court and

the sworn statement of the same witness given to Detective Justiniano E. Fernandez of the Cabanatuan City Police (marked as Exhibit 17), which the defense presented for impeachment purposes, strangely without objection on the part of the prosecution notwithstanding that the defense failed to lay the predicate therefor.

" The material discrepancies between the contents of the sworn statement, on the one

hand, and the testimony of Angeles in open court, on the other, are so irreconcilable that even if the proper predicate had been laid upon proper objection of the fiscal it is doubtful, if any believable reconciliation could have been given by him.

! In open court, he testified that in the afternoon of June 23, 1971, it was at the

entrance of the Capital Theater that he met Talastas and invited him to see the movie but the latter said that he was waiting for Amanda. It turned out, according to Exhibit 17, that he and Talastas were still in Barrio Aduas, where they were staying, when Manda arrived with a woman companion and invited them to go to the "cine".

! In his testimony, he said that it was Amanda who left and did not go back

anymore, while in the above statement, he declared that both of their two female companions told them they would only go to the comfort room but eventually

(9)

disappeared. In court, he said that when Manda did not return, he invited Talastas to leave but the latter answered he would wait for Manda's return.

! In Exhibit 17, it appears that he and Talastas agreed to follow and look for their

lady companions and that he went ahead and Talastas stopped by the ticket booth. Whereas in court, he testified that he was already in the middle or across Burgos Street near the Avenue Theater when he heard shots inside the Capital Theater where Talastas had returned, as they met Federico Relucio with a companion, unknown to him, who were going inside, hence, he did not see who fired the shots, in the above sworn statement, he categorically stated that upon seeing Relucio, who had separated from his two armed companions and gone inside, he (Angeles) went back inside the theater and actually saw Relucio firing at Gonzalo and the latter retaliating with his own gun.

! In court, he said that when Talastas came out of the theater already wounded

and running towards the east, the two companions of Relucio, referring to Velasco and Padrones, chased Talastas, with Relucio riding in a jeep and Padrones going on foot.

Issue: WON testimony of witness Angeles should be impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements.

Held: Yes.

" In brief, in court, Angeles' account of the participation of appellant in the shooting of

Talastas was vague and inconclusive; in his statement, Exhibit 17, nothing points definitely and specifically to appellant as having fired any shot at all; importantly the one clearly and categorically referred to as having shot Talastas is Egi or Padrones.

" It results, therefore, that at least insofar as herein appellant Velasco is concerned, the

testimony of Angeles has been completely impeached or discredited.

" It is a basic postulate in the law on evidence that every witness is presumed to be

truthful and perjury is not to be readily inferred just because apparent inconsistencies are evinced in parts of his testimony. Every effort to reconcile the conflicting points should first be exerted before any adverse conclusion can be made therefrom. These considerations he at the base of the familiar rule requiring the laying of a predicate, which is essence means simply that it is the duty of a party trying to impugn the testimony of a witness by means of prior or, for that matter, subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oral or in writing, to give the witness a chance to reconcile his conflicting declarations, such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is given by him that he should be deemed impeached. Thus, Section 16 of Rule 132 provides:

! Section 16. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements if so, to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.

(10)

" In United States vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil 385, at pp. 406-407, the Court made a clear

exposition of the universal rule of laying a predicate as follows:

! In order that we may not be misunderstood, as wen as for the purpose of

clarifying the practice in such matters, a few words may here be properly said in respect to the proper mode of proceeding in a case where a party wishes to get before the court contradictory statements made by a witness who is testifying for the adversary party. For instance, if the attorney for -the accused had information that a certain witness, say Pedro Gonzales, had made and signed a sworn statement before the fiscal materially different from that given in his testimony before the court, it was incumbent upon the attorney when cross-examining said witness to direct his attention to the discrepancy and to ask him if he did not make such and such statement before the fiscal or if he did not there make a statement different from that delivered in court. If the witness admits the making of such contradictory statement, the accused has the benefit of the admission, while the witness has the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness denies making any such contradictory statement, the accused has the right to prove that the witness did make such statement; and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce the document, secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called in the practice of the American courts 'laying a predicate' for the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the court.

! We wish to add that in a case of this kind, if the accused had, by affidavit or

otherwise, made it appear to the satisfaction of the court that the witnesses named had made statements in their declarations before the fiscal materially at variance with their statements in court and that the production of said declarations was necessary or even desirable, in the interests of justice, the court would have had ample power to order their production.

" But it, as in the instant case of the witness Angeles, the prosecution did not object to the

presentation of Exhibit 17 which was offered expressly for impeachment purposes, notwithstanding that the defense did not give the witness the opportunity to give his own explanation of the apparent contradictions in his testimony, the trial judge and the appellate courts have no alternative but to determine, if they can, possible reconciliation on the basis alone of logic and common experience. The omission to object on the ground of failure to lay the predicate is waived by the omission to interpose the same when the impeaching contradictory statement is offered. (Evidence, [Rules of Court] Vol. VII, 1973 ed. by Vicente Francisco, p. 398.) On this score, We find the inconsistencies in the two versions of Angeles utterly beyond possible rational explanation. The various discrepancies We have pointed out above - and there are still others We have not mentioned — are so disparate that there can be no other conclusion than that the witness must have lied in either of them. Accordingly, We have to reject both of them.

(11)

3. PEOPLE V. WINSTON DE GUZMAN

DOCTRINE: It is universally accepted that a witness cannot be impeached by evidence of contradictory or prior inconsistent statements until the proper foundation or predicate has been duly laid by the party against whom said witness was called

FACTS: Winston de Guzman was accused of raping 14-year-old Jovelyn Geram. Geram was sleeping at around two o’ clock that afternoon when she was awakened by the weight of something on top of her. Upon opening her eyes, she saw De Guzman naked and sitting on her thighs. Geram instinctively tried to shout for help but De Guzman covered her mouth and nose with his hand and warned her not to resist or she would be killed. A struggle between the two ensued thereafter.

The strength of appellant and the strain of Geram’s efforts at resistance took its toll on the latter, causing her to feel weak and faint. On recovering her senses, Geram discovered that she was already undressed and she saw blood on her vagina. She also noticed some white fluid on her abdomen and thighs. She felt pain on her genitals and other parts of her body. De Guzman was no longer around, and Geram was left crying over the tragedy which had befallen her. De Guzman was convicted by the trial court and on appeal, he assails the fact that Geram stated in her complaint and in her testimony given during the preliminary investigation that he committed the crime of rape through the application of odorous chemicals over her nose and mouth which caused her to sleep. This fact was not repeated by complainant in the trial court but she merely claimed the crime was consummated by De Guzman through force and intimidation. Such inconsistency, according to De Guzman, destroys Geram’s credibility, thus warranting a reversal of the lower court’s judgment of conviction.

ISSUE: WON Geram’s inconsistent statements destroys Geram’s credibility? NO

HELD: In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court said that it is universally accepted that a witness cannot be impeached by evidence of contradictory or prior inconsistent statements until the proper foundation or predicate has been duly laid by the party against whom said witness was called. The American rule on laying the predicate is embodied in Rule 132 of our own Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. - Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.

(12)

Although the whole record of the testimony of complainant at the preliminary examination was offered in evidence by the defense and admitted by the trial court, complainant cannot now be discredited through any of her extrajudicial statements which were not brought to her attention during the trial. Thus, it has been held that granting arguendo the alleged contradictions, previous statements cannot serve as bases for impeaching the credibility of a witness unless his attention was first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given an opportunity to explain them. In People vs. Resabal, the Court explicitly ruled that the mere presentation of the prior declarations of a witness without the same having been read to the witness while he was testifying in court is insufficient for the desired impeachment of his testimony. As explained therein, the apparent contradiction between the declarations of the witness before the former justice of the peace court and those before the then court of first instance was insufficient to

discredit him since he was not given ample opportunity, by reading to him his declarations before the lower court, to explain the supposed discrepancy. In this case, Geram was never confronted during the proceedings in the trial court with her answers allegedly given in the same testimony at the preliminary investigation regarding De Guzman’s resort to sleep-inducing chemicals. In fact, no sub-markings for such particular answers as exhibits were made in the records of her testimony in the preliminary investigation, much less offered by the counsel of De Guzman for that purpose during the trial of the case

RULE 132, SECTION 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS

1. JOSON V. BALTAZAR

DOCTRINE:

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its a uthenticity.

FACTS:

" This is an administrative case for disbarment instituted by Marciano Joson against Atty.

Gloria M. Baltazar for a violation of the RPC and grave malpractice.

! Baltazar made it appear in the deed of sale that Joson sold 150 sq.m of his land,

instead of only 50 sq.m which was the real agreement of the parties.

! At the time Baltazar notarized the deed of sale, she was no longer authorized to

do so since her notarial commission had already expired.

" The complaint and answer were referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for

investigation, report and recommendation.

" Baltazar’s Defenses:

! She applied for the renewal of her commission prior to its expiration.

! The court employee in charge of renewal already prepared the necessary

documentation and she left money to cover the fees and services of that employee.

! She forgot about the matter and in good faith continued to act as notary public in

the honest belief that her commission had been renewed with the filing of the petition which she considered a routine formality.

(13)

! When she learned that her petition had not been filed, she applied anew for

renewal and was then re-commissioned as notary public.

" Solicitor General’s findings:

! Charge of Malpractice: not substantiated.

# The only evidence submitted by Joson was his own testimony.

# Joson even made admissions that he signed the deed of sale voluntarily

having seen "that the document was prepared correctly ("Mahusay ang pagkakita ko sa paggawa ng dokumento" ).

! Charge of RPC violation: Baltazar did not deny that her commission as notary

public had expired by the time she notarized the deed of sale. ISSUE: WON Baltazar wrongfully notarized the deed of sale. – YES

HELD:

(As to the charge of Malpractice)

Joson’s testimony is not competent, in view of the parole evidence rule, to vary the terms of the written agreement of the parties with respect to the area of land sold. By itself, Joson’s testimony is insufficient to show the existence of a mistake or imperfection in the writing or that the deed of sale failed to express the true intent and agreement of the parties.

(MAIN TOPIC: As to the violation of the RPC)

The Court is unable to accept her plea of good faith simply on the basis of her claimed belief that her commission would be approved upon the filing of her petition for renewal of her commission.

" In In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E . Flores, the SC characterized the

conduct of notarizing documents at a time when one’s commission had expired as "reprehensible", "constituting not only a malpractice but also the commission, in separate and distinct occasions, of the crime of falsification of public documents, which justifies disbarment.

! Baltazar's conduct must be similarly characterized as malpractice and

falsification of a public document.

" Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and

renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

! Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon

the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

! Notarization is not an empty routine; it engages public interest in a substantial

degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public, the courts, and administrative offices.

SC: Since only 1 instance of unauthorized notarization is involved, rather than repeated acts, and considering the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that suspension from the practice of law for 3 months would be an ad equate administrative penalty.

(14)

2. SALES and BERMUDEZ V. CA and LEONILO GONZALES

Doctrine:

A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the document concerned. It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof.

Non-registration of a deed of donation under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3344 does not bind other parties ignorant of a previous transaction, notwithstanding the provision that “any registration made under this section shall be understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.”

TD - tax declaration

Location of the property: Bugallon, Pangasinan Place of Notarization: San Manuel, Tarlac Facts:

" Severo Sales owned an unregistered parcel of land in Bugallon, Pangasinan. Covered

by TD No. 5861, property area: more or less 5,733 sqm.

" 04 July 1955, Sales mortgaged said property, to spouses Agpoon to secure the payment

of a loan.

! 30 October 1957, TD No. 5861 was canceled and TD No. 13647 was issued to

Sales but the area of the property was stated therein as more or less 5,229 sqm.

" 24 December 1958, Sales, with the consent of his wife, donated 900 sqm of the same

property in favor of their daughter, Bermudez.

! The duly notarized deed of donation was presented to the Assessor’s Office on

the day of its execution.

! Hence, TD No. 13647 was replaced by 2 TDs:

i. TD No. 138755 in the name Bermudez for the 900 sqm. lot donated to

her; and

ii. TD No. 138746 in the name of Sales covering the remaining portion or

4,339 sqm.

" As a consequence of the case filed by Agpoon against Sales in the CFI, sometime in

January 1959, the mortgaged property of Sales was set for foreclosure.

! Sales requested Ernesto Gonzales (a friend) to pay his total indebtedness to the

Agpoon spouses to prevent foreclosure.

! Ernesto Gonzales acceded to the request and asked sps. Sales to sign a

document transferring the mortgage to him.

" According to the Sales spouses, they were not given a copy of

said document.

! A month later, Sales had the land covered by TD No. 5861 surveyed by a private

surveyor.

" 03 February 1959, a document entitled “Deed of Sale” between Severo Sales and

(15)

" October 1968, Sales received a photostat copy of the deed of sale appearing to have

been signed by him and his wife on January 29, 1959 before Notary Public Arturo Malazo in San Manuel, Tarlac.

! The document stated that the Sales spouses had sold the land described under

TD No. 5861 in consideration of the amount to Leonilo Gonzales, son of Ernesto Gonzales.

" In the Intestate Estate Proceedings of Ernesto Gonzales, the land in question was

claimed by Leonilo Gonzales. Subsequently, upon submission of the Deed of Sale between Severo Sales and Leonilo Gonzales, the questioned land was excluded therefrom. Said parcel of land was declared by Leonilo Gonzales under TD No. 12483.

" 07 November 1968, Leonilo Gonzales filed an action for illegal detainer against Sales in

the MTC.

! Before the case could be tried, Sales and Bermudez filed in the CFI Tarlac, a

complaint for annulment of the deed of sale between Sales and Gonzales on the ground of fraud.

! Consequently, the MTC suspended the illegal detainer proceedings before it

pending the outcome of the annulment case.

" CFI: The allegation of fraud was not supported by convincing evidence, favoring

Gonzales.

! Sales and Bermudez appealed.

" CA: CFI’s decision affirmed.

! Sales and Bermudez argued that granting that the deed of sale is valid, the CFI

failed to take into consideration the fact that the deed of donation was executed ahead of the deed of sale and must not, therefore, be disregarded considering that with reference to unregistered lands, an earlier instrument prevails over a later one.

Issue:

1. W/n the deed of donation executed by spouses Sales in favor of their daughter (Bermudez) is valid and will affect third parties. (Yes, it is valid as to Spouses Sales and Bermudez but will not affect third parties.)

2. W/n the deed of sale between spouses Sales and Gonzales is valid. (Yes) Held:

1. It was established in the facts that the deed of donation was not registered at all, wherein the subject property was unregistered land.

! Yes, the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the donee thereby

effectively transmitting the rights to said property from spouses Sales to Bermudez, such deed, however, did not bind Leonilo Gonzales, a third party to the donation. This is because non-registration of a deed of donation under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3344 does not bind other parties ignorant of a previous transaction, notwithstanding the provision therein which petitioners invoke that “any registration made under this section shall be understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.”

(16)

2. Yes.

! The deed of sale itself, specifically the notarial acknowledgment thereof, contains

a statement that its executors were known to the notary public to be the persons who executed the instrument; that they were “informed by me (notary public) of the contents thereof” and that they acknowledged to the notary public that the instrument was freely and voluntarily executed. When he testified at the hearing, notary public Arturo Malazo stated, “I know Mr. Severo Sales and he appeared before me when I notarized that document.” Later, he added that “the document speaks for itself and the witnesses were there and those were the persons present.” Thus, the stark denial of the petitioners, specially Sales, that he executed the deed of sale pales in the face of Malazo’s testimony because the testimony of the notary public enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness.

! A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the document

concerned. It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof.

SC noted of the fact that while the Deed of Donation was not registered, the Deed of Sale was registered as evidenced by the notation made by the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan and the official receipt issued by the Registry of Deeds.

SC: CA’s decision affirmed, favoring Gonzales.

3. LUCENTE V. EVANGELISTA

DOCTRINE: By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. engaged in an unlawful and deceitful conduct. He was not the notary public before whom said documents were acknowledged and he was neither the custodian of the original copies thereof. The Records Management and Archives Office, Manila, certified that there was no copy on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized by respondent’s father. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is broad enough to cover any form of misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and personal capacity.

FACTS:

" Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo (herein complainants) in a sworn

letter-complaint filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline charged Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr (herein respondent). with gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents.

" Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty. Cleto Evangelista, who

during his lifetime notarized a Deed of Quitclaim and a Deed of Absolute Sale involving Lot No. 5514 and Lot No. 1187-B.

(17)

" Respondent issued certified true copies of the said instruments. On the basis of the

certified true copies of the subject deeds, the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23889 in favor of Asuncion T. Yared.

! Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint interposing Res adjudicate

and another Civil Case filed against Yared et al. for declaration of nullity of the quitclaim and deed of absolute sale covering TCT No. 23889, raised a prejudicial question in the disbarment proceeding.

" Respondent also contended that one Carmen Solidor together with Francisco Aves

came to their law office, Evangelista Law Office in Ormoc City, Leyte, and asked him to certify true copies of the subject deeds. He acceded to the request considering that the documents were notarized by his late father as notary public. He alleged that he issued the assailed certification as a partner of the law office

" After investigation, the IBP Board of Governors, recommended the reprimand of Atty.

Cleto L. Evangelista with stern warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely. The recommendation was noted by this Court

ISSUE: WON Atty. Evangelista, Jr. should be held liable for having issued certified true copies of the instruments-in-issue? YES

HELD:

Records disclose that Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having certified true copies of the Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on January 7, 1972. His late father, Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, notarized the subject deeds.

Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads:

Notarial Register . — Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record , or any parts thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor. x x x.

Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code also require the notary public to forward his notarial register to the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province or city wherein he exercises his office for safekeeping.

By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. engaged in an unlawful and deceitful conduct. He was not the notary public before whom said documents were acknowledged and he was neither the custodian of the original copies thereof. The Records Management and Archives Office, Manila, certified that there was no copy on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized by respondent’s father. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is broad enough to cover any form of misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and personal capacity.

In this connection, we have consistently held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are

(18)

Evidence |

qualified or author

qualified or authorized may act as notarized may act as notaries public. ies public. The protection of that The protection of that interest necessarinterest necessarilyily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. For this document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

performance of their duties. SC: Suspended for 6 months SC: Suspended for 6 months

4.

4. YTURRALDE YTURRALDE V. V. AZURINAZURIN

DOCTRINES: DOCTRINES:

Stenographic Notes – effect of

Stenographic Notes – effect of failure to correct alleged errors in transcript failure to correct alleged errors in transcript Where the integrity of the s

Where the integrity of the stenographic record is tenographic record is intact, and no one takes intact, and no one takes any step toany step to correct to correct the alleged error in the

correct to correct the alleged error in the transcript before the records are elevated to thetranscript before the records are elevated to the appellate court, the presumption that the stenographer regularly performed her duty appellate court, the presumption that the stenographer regularly performed her duty stands

stands

Notarial Document

Notarial Document – proof necessary to overcome notarial document – proof necessary to overcome notarial document To contradict the facts obtained in

To contradict the facts obtained in a notarial document and a notarial document and the presumption of regularitythe presumption of regularity in its favor, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than mere in its favor, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than mere preponderant

preponderant FACTS: FACTS:

Carmen Yturralde donated (

Carmen Yturralde donated (10) parcels of l10) parcels of land to Consuelo Azurin. and to Consuelo Azurin. The notarial deed ofThe notarial deed of donation bore the signatures of Cipriano Yturralde and Apolonio Yturralde (as donation bore the signatures of Cipriano Yturralde and Apolonio Yturralde (as witnesses). Plaintiffs Cipriano & Nenita Yturralde now seek to annul the notarial deed of witnesses). Plaintiffs Cipriano & Nenita Yturralde now seek to annul the notarial deed of donation as they are alleging that the execution is tainted with fraudulent donation as they are alleging that the execution is tainted with fraudulent misrepresentation and the document is merely one for the administration of properties misrepresentation and the document is merely one for the administration of properties and not a donation

and not a donation

Consuelo Azurin was the childhood friend of Carmen Yturralde. Consuelo was the Consuelo Azurin was the childhood friend of Carmen Yturralde. Consuelo was the Physician of Carmen and on one occasion Carmen asked Consuelo to assist her with Physician of Carmen and on one occasion Carmen asked Consuelo to assist her with the collection of her deceased son’s back-pay and pension for services rendered with the collection of her deceased son’s back-pay and pension for services rendered with the USAFFE. Due to the help rendered by Consuelo, Carmen was able to obtain a lump the USAFFE. Due to the help rendered by Consuelo, Carmen was able to obtain a lump sum payment for the back pay of her son, and a monthly pension of P75. Likewise, sum payment for the back pay of her son, and a monthly pension of P75. Likewise, every time Carmen got

every time Carmen got ill, Consuelo Consill, Consuelo Consuelo would always assiuelo would always assist her. st her. (In short, cl(In short, closeose sila)

sila)

On December 1955, Carmen informed Consuelo of

On December 1955, Carmen informed Consuelo of her desire to donate her desire to donate the (10) parcelsthe (10) parcels

of land to him. The reason for the donation was the fear entertained by Carmen that her of land to him. The reason for the donation was the fear entertained by Carmen that her

(19)

Evidence |

brother, Cipriano a gambler, would only waste her properties if she predeceased him. brother, Cipriano a gambler, would only waste her properties if she predeceased him. Carmen then wanted an assurance that from the

Carmen then wanted an assurance that from the produce of the lands, the Azurins wouldproduce of the lands, the Azurins would

support her and her brother, Cipriano, construct a house for them, and repair, put in support her and her brother, Cipriano, construct a house for them, and repair, put in good condition, and maintain Carmen's family mausoleum. The Azurins accepted. All of good condition, and maintain Carmen's family mausoleum. The Azurins accepted. All of these were taken up in the

these were taken up in the presence of Cipriano and Apolonio.presence of Cipriano and Apolonio. The draft of the deed of donation was prepared by

The draft of the deed of donation was prepared by Atty. Tayco with the use of data takenAtty. Tayco with the use of data taken

from the tax declarations and certificates of title obtained by Consuelo Azurin from the from the tax declarations and certificates of title obtained by Consuelo Azurin from the Provincial Assessor and the Register of Deeds.

Provincial Assessor and the Register of Deeds.

On December 10, 1955, Consuelo Azurin went back to Carmen Yturralde at Sibalom On December 10, 1955, Consuelo Azurin went back to Carmen Yturralde at Sibalom with the deed of donation. Plaintiff and his nephew, Apolonio Yturralde, were there. with the deed of donation. Plaintiff and his nephew, Apolonio Yturralde, were there. Consuelo Azurin read the document in the

Consuelo Azurin read the document in the presence of plaintiff, translated and explainedpresence of plaintiff, translated and explained the contents thereof to Carmen in the Visayan dialect. Having expressed her conformity, the contents thereof to Carmen in the Visayan dialect. Having expressed her conformity, Carmen was asked by Consuelo Azurin to affix her thumbmark on the document. Carmen was asked by Consuelo Azurin to affix her thumbmark on the document. Plaintiff looked for something hard on which to place the papers. Consuelo Azurin Plaintiff looked for something hard on which to place the papers. Consuelo Azurin helped Carmen imprint her thumbmark. Consuelo Azurin then gave the document to helped Carmen imprint her thumbmark. Consuelo Azurin then gave the document to plaintiff for the latter to sign as witness. Plaintiff scanned the pages thereof, signed, and plaintiff for the latter to sign as witness. Plaintiff scanned the pages thereof, signed, and in turn asked his nephew, Apolonio, to do likewise. On December 15, 1955, Consuelo in turn asked his nephew, Apolonio, to do likewise. On December 15, 1955, Consuelo Azurin

Azurin brought brought Atty. Atty. Tayco Tayco to tto the hhe house ouse of Caof Carmen rmen to hto have ave the the deed deed of dof donation onation ratifiedratified by the latter. Atty. Tayco read and

by the latter. Atty. Tayco read and translated the deed and explained the translated the deed and explained the contents to her.contents to her. Carmen told Atty. Tayco that she was agreeable to what was stated

Carmen told Atty. Tayco that she was agreeable to what was stated in the document.in the document.

The back of the said deed

The back of the said deed of donation reads;of donation reads;

!!! #$%&%'(&%) *+, -./*01. 23 0+/.45*6+57 23 863. *+, 651 6+.965*-8. .+,) *+, :7 !!! #$%&%'(&%) *+, -./*01. 23 0+/.45*6+57 23 863. *+, 651 6+.965*-8. .+,) *+, :7 ,.164. 52 ,.:2+154*5. :7 */5 23 ;4*5.308+.11 52 <41! =2+10.82 >! ?@046+ *+, A.4 ,.164. 52 ,.:2+154*5. :7 */5 23 ;4*5.308+.11 52 <41! =2+10.82 >! ?@046+ *+, A.4 A01-*+,) =2+10.82 ?@046+) BA68. *-8. 52 ,2 12) C) =?&<%D E#F&&?GH%) 5A. H2+24 A01-*+,) =2+10.82 ?@046+) BA68. *-8. 52 ,2 12) C) =?&<%D E#F&&?GH%) 5A. H2+24 A.4.6+ 4.3.44., *-29.) 6+ 3088 I211.1162+ 23 *88 :7 :.+5*8 3*/0856.1) A.4.-7 ;69.) A.4.6+ 4.3.44., *-29.) 6+ 3088 I211.1162+ 23 *88 :7 :.+5*8 3*/0856.1) A.4.-7 ;69.) 54*+13.4 *+, /2+9.7) -7 B*7 23 H(D?#C(D 0+52 5A. 1*6, =2+10.82 >! ?@046+) A.4 54*+13.4 *+, /2+9.7) -7 B*7 23 H(D?#C(D 0+52 5A. 1*6, =2+10.82 >! ?@046+) A.4 A.641) 10//.11241) *+, *116;+1 5A. *-29.J,.1/46-., I42I.456.1) B65A *88 5A. A.641) 10//.11241) *+, *116;+1 5A. *-29.J,.1/46-., I42I.456.1) B65A *88 5A. 6:I429.:.+51 5A.4.2+) *+, 10/A 25A.4 I.412+*8 I42I.456.1!

6:I429.:.+51 5A.4.2+) *+, 10/A 25A.4 I.412+*8 I42I.456.1!

K22+ 5A.4.*35.4) =*4:.+ I*11., *B*7 ,0. 52 =.4.-4*8 $.:244A*;.! K22+ 5A.4.*35.4) =*4:.+ I*11., *B*7 ,0. 52 =.4.-4*8 $.:244A*;.!

=6I46*+2 *88.;.1 5A*5 =2+10.82 3228., A6: 6+52 16;+6+; 5A. ,.., 23 ,2+*562+ *+, 522L =6I46*+2 *88.;.1 5A*5 =2+10.82 3228., A6: 6+52 16;+6+; 5A. ,.., 23 ,2+*562+ *+, 522L *,9*+5*;. 23 =*4:.+M1 16/L+.11 6+ 24,.4 52 2-5*6+ A.4 5A0:- :*4L! =6I46*+2 3045A.4 15*5.1 *,9*+5*;. 23 =*4:.+M1 16/L+.11 6+ 24,.4 52 2-5*6+ A.4 5A0:- :*4L! =6I46*+2 3045A.4 15*5.1 5A*5 5A. =.4.-4*8 $.:244A*;. 23 =*4:.+ 8.35 A.4 I*4*87@., *+, 0+*-8. 52 +.65A.4 1I.*L +24 5A*5 5A. =.4.-4*8 $.:244A*;. 23 =*4:.+ 8.35 A.4 I*4*87@., *+, 0+*-8. 52 +.65A.4 1I.*L +24 15*+,! '045A.4:24.! ?I282+62 E5044*8,. 15*5.1 5A*5 A. 16;+., 5A. ,2/0:.+5 B65A205 4.*,6+; 15*+,! '045A.4:24.! ?I282+62 E5044*8,. 15*5.1 5A*5 A. 16;+., 5A. ,2/0:.+5 B65A205 4.*,6+; 651 /2+5.+51

651 /2+5.+51

#A. 82B.4 /2045 408., 5A*5 =*4:.+ L+.B BA*5 1A. B*1 ,26+; *+, A*, 5A. I2B.4 23 1I../A #A. 82B.4 /2045 408., 5A*5 =*4:.+ L+.B BA*5 1A. B*1 ,26+; *+, A*, 5A. I2B.4 23 1I../A *5 5A. 56:. 5A. ,2/0:.+5 B*1 .N./05.,! ?1 10/A) 5A.4. B*1 * 9*86, ,2+*562+!

(20)

Evidence |

#A. 82B.4 /2045 -*1., 651 O0,;:.+5 2+ 5A. 5.156:2+7 23 ?I282+62 E5044*8,. BA6/A 4.*,1 *1 #A. 82B.4 /2045 -*1., 651 O0,;:.+5 2+ 5A. 5.156:2+7 23 ?I282+62 E5044*8,. BA6/A 4.*,1 *1 32882B1P

32882B1P Q!

Q! D2) BA68. D2) BA68. 720 B.4. 720 B.4. 5A.4.) B*1 5A.4. 5A.4.) B*1 5A.4. *+7 2//*162+ *+7 2//*162+ BA.4. =6I46*+2 5*8L., BA.4. =6I46*+2 5*8L., 52 A.452 A.4 1615.4 =*4:.+R

1615.4 =*4:.+R ?!

?! !"#$ #&'$!"#$ #&'$ !"#$ &#'# !#(()*+ ,!-')#,!"#$ &#'# !#(()*+ ,!-')#,(( Q!

Q! #A.7 B.4. 5*8L6+; #A.7 B.4. 5*8L6+; 52 .*/A 25A.4) =*4:.+ 52 .*/A 25A.4) =*4:.+ *+, =6I46*+2) 61 *+, =6I46*+2) 61 65 +25R 65 +25R S015 *+1B.4 5A.S015 *+1B.4 5A. T0.1562+!

T0.1562+! ?!

?! !"#$ #&'$!"#$ #&'$ !"#$ &#'# !.(/)*+ !- #.0" -!"#' !"#$ &#'# !.(/)*+ !- #.0" -!"#' ((

U8*6+5633 +2B *4;0.1 5A*5 5A. 15.+2;4*IA6/ +25.1 61 +25 * 3*65A308 54*+18*562+ 23 5A. V61*7*+ U8*6+5633 +2B *4;0.1 5A*5 5A. 15.+2;4*IA6/ +25.1 61 +25 * 3*65A308 54*+18*562+ 23 5A. V61*7*+ ,6*8./5 01., -7 ?I282+62 E5044*8,. BA68. 5.156376+;!

,6*8./5 01., -7 ?I282+62 E5044*8,. BA68. 5.156376+;! CKKF%K W $%GHX

CKKF%K W $%GHX

)( *+",+"' ,+" -./&0,&11 2/0 034 230,"#, ,+" &0,"5'&,6 31 ,+" #,"035'/-+&2 03,"#7 )( *+",+"' ,+" -./&0,&11 2/0 034 230,"#, ,+" &0,"5'&,6 31 ,+" #,"035'/-+&2 03,"#7

NO. Plaintiff is bound by the transcription of Apolonio Yturralde's testimony just NO. Plaintiff is bound by the transcription of Apolonio Yturralde's testimony just reproduced. Plaintiff did not move to amend the same below. His failure to do so stops reproduced. Plaintiff did not move to amend the same below. His failure to do so stops him from raising this question on appeal. Very recently, we held that where the integrity him from raising this question on appeal. Very recently, we held that where the integrity of the stenographic record is intact, and no one takes any step to correct the alleged of the stenographic record is intact, and no one takes any step to correct the alleged error in the transcript before the records are elevated to the appellate court, "the error in the transcript before the records are elevated to the appellate court, "the presumption that the stenograph earlier regularly performed her duty

presumption that the stenograph earlier regularly performed her duty standsstands

2. Whether there was

2. Whether there was fraud in the signing of the notarial deed fraud in the signing of the notarial deed of donation?of donation?

NO. There was no fraud in the signing of the document. Where the notarial document is NO. There was no fraud in the signing of the document. Where the notarial document is expressed in a clear and unequivocal manner, it has in its favor the presumption of expressed in a clear and unequivocal manner, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these, there must be evidence that is "clear, convincing and regularity. To contradict all these, there must be evidence that is "clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant

more than merely preponderant

Plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence in order to overcome the Plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence in order to overcome the presumption of regularity of the notarial deed

presumption of regularity of the notarial deed of donation.of donation.

Moreover, Cipriano’s testimony states that during the signing of the deed of donation he Moreover, Cipriano’s testimony states that during the signing of the deed of donation he witnessed that Consuelo forcibly grabbed the thumb of Carmen in order to affix the witnessed that Consuelo forcibly grabbed the thumb of Carmen in order to affix the latter’s thumb mark on the document. If plaintiff really believed that Dr. Azurin acted in a latter’s thumb mark on the document. If plaintiff really believed that Dr. Azurin acted in a manner which would evoke suspicion, coupled with his own alleged knowledge that said manner which would evoke suspicion, coupled with his own alleged knowledge that said Dr. Azurin was interested in the wealth of his sister, then it stands to reason to say that Dr. Azurin was interested in the wealth of his sister, then it stands to reason to say that he must have been on guard. His normal reaction would have been to stave off he must have been on guard. His normal reaction would have been to stave off execution of the deed of donation. But

(21)

Consuelo Azarin could not have misled Cipriano, as Cipriano knew how to read English, he also knew Spanish well and the trial judge observed that he was not feeble minded. The English word "DONATION" was present in the face of the document. That is the equivalent of the Spanish word "DONACION", which, of course he understands

We find, as did the lower court, that the deed of donation was properly executed.

Since the donation was made in a public document specifying the immovables donated, and the conditions for the donation, and that acceptance thereof was made in the same deed of donation, that donation should be given effect.

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (AS FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. MC INDUSTRIAL V. SSANGYONG

DOCTRINE:

Facsimile transmissions are not, in this sense, "paperless," but verily are paper-based. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.

It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

FACTS:

" Petitioner MCC Industrial Sales (MCC), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of

importing and wholesaling stainless steel products.

" Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), an international trading company with head office in

Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City, Philippines is one of its suppliers.

" The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or

telecopy transmissions.

! Ssangyong would send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel

product order to MCC; if the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to Ssangyong, again by fax.

" Ssangyong Manila Office sent, by fax, a letter to Gregory Chan, MCC’s manager (also

president of Sanyo Seiki Stainless Steel Corporation) to confirm MCC's and Sanyo Seiki's order of 220MT of hot rolled stainless steel. The manager, on behalf of the corporation, affixed his signature on the conforme portion of the letter.

" Ssangyong forwarded to MCC Pro Forma Invoice containing the terms and conditions of

the transaction which MCC sent back by fax the invoice bearing the signature.

! stated in the pro forma invoice is their agreement to pay via an irrevocable letter of