Law 304 – Evidence

Case Digests

Submitted by:
Khiarra Marie O. Tacubao

Submitted to:
Atty. Marjorie Leigh Llano

1. People vs. Gutierrez

G.R. No. 188602
 February 4, 2010

Facts:
Ford Gutierrez y Dimaano was charged with murder, frustrated murder,
and three counts of attempted murder arising from an incident which
occurred on May 17, 2003, in Makati City, Philippines. Gutierrez was
accused of shooting multiple victims which resulted in the death of a
certain Leo Salvador Regis and causing the injuries of Alexis Dalit, Jaypee
Boneo, Randy Marcelo, and Jefferson Gallemit. The trial court and the CA
found him guilty of the aforementioned charges. Gutierrez now appeals to
the Supreme Court claiming self-defense.

Issue:
Whether or not Gutierrez acted in self-defense.

Held:
No, Gutierrez did not act in self-defense. The Supreme Court held that
Gutierrez failed to prove his claim of self-defense. Self-defense cannot be
justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. In invoking
self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming
self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the prosecution.

In this case, Gutierrez failed to discharge the burden of proving unlawful

aggression. His version of the events was uncorroborated, and his
testimony was found to be less credible by the trial court. The court found
his testimony less credible than that of the prosecution witnesses.

2. DBP vs. CA
G.R. No. 110053
October 16, 2005
 Facts:
DBP sold a parcel of land to the Mangubat spouses. Subsequently, the
Mangubat spouses applied for an industrial tree planting loan with DBP,
which required a certification from the Bureau of Forest Development. The
Bureau certified that the land was classified as timberland and not subject
to disposition. Despite this, DBP approved a P140,000.00 loan, secured by
a real estate mortgage executed on March 17, 1982. However, the
spouses later sought the annulment of the sale, claiming that the land was
inalienable timberland and alleging fraud and bad faith by DBP. The trial
court annulled the sale and ordered DBP to return the purchase price and
reimburse various expenses.

Issue:
Whether or not damages may be awarded based on the list.

Held:
No, damages may not be awarded to the spouses based on the list. The
Court noted that the list of damages was prepared extrajudicially by the
spouses without any supporting receipts. That list, per se, is necessarily
self-serving and, on that account, should have been declared inadmissible
in evidence as the factum probans.

In order that damages may be recovered, the best evidence obtainable by

the injured party must be presented. Actual or compensatory damages
cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and so proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation,
conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must
depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered and on
evidence of the actual amount thereof. If the proof is flimsy and
unsubstantial, no damages will be awarded

3. Phil. Airlines, Inc., vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

G.R. No. 206079-80
January 17, 2018

Facts:
 In November 2003, Philippine Airlines claimed a refund from the BIR in the
amount of P510,233.16 and US$65,877.07 for taxes withheld by
Chinabank, PBCom, and Standard Chartered, and P1,237,646.43 for taxes
withheld by JPMorgan. Philippine Airlines contends that it was exempt from
paying the said taxes under its franchise. However, the Commissioner
denied the claim, asserting the Philippine Airlines failed to prove the
remittance of the withheld taxes to the BIR.

Issue:
Whether or not evidence not presented in the administrative claim for
refund in the BIR can be presented in the Court of Tax Appeals.

Held:
Yes, evidence not presented in the administrative claim for refund in the
BIR can be presented in the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that the
Court of Tax Appeals is not limited by the evidence presented in the
administrative claim in the BIR. The claimant may present new and
additional evidence to the Court of Tax Appeals to support its case for a
tax refund.

The Court of Tax Appeals is a court of record and is not limited to the
evidence presented in the administrative claim. Parties are expected to
litigate and prove every aspect of their case anew and formally offer all
their evidence in the Court of Tax Appeals.

4. People vs. Lavapie

G.R. No. 130209
March 14, 2001

Facts:
 Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr. were charged with murder for
the killing of a certain Sonny Sierva. On March 29, 1989, in Sitio Tastas,
Brgy. San Vicente, Municipality of Buhi, Camarines Sur, the accused
attacked and hacked the deceased Sonny Sierva with bolos which resulted
to the latter’s death. Prosecution eyewitness, Domingo Samonte, testified
that Sierva was hacked by Lavapie on the neck and demonstrated by
pointing to the left side of his neck. However, physical evidence shows
that the deceased had a wound on the right side of his neck.

Nevertheless, the trial court found Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr. guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua.

Issue:
Whether or not Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr. are guilty of murder beyond
reasonable doubt.

Held:
No, Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr. are not guilty of murder beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that there is reasonable doubt in the
guilt of Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr.

The court based its decision on the inconsistencies in the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses and the doubts regarding their credibility. One of
the witnesses' testimony was contradicted by the physical evidence. The
court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr. were acquitted.

5. People v. Balleno y Pernetes

G.R. No. 149075
August 7, 2003

Facts:
 Rodrigo Balleno y Pernetes was accused of raping his 13-year-old
stepdaughter, Jacquelyn Balandra y Alzate, on March 18, 2000, at their
home in Pasay City. According to the prosecution, Balleno entered the
room where Jaquelyn was lying down, touched her thighs, placed her
hands on her back, and covered her mouth and then removed her shorts
and panties and proceeded to lay on top of her and inserted his penis into
her vagina. Jacquelyn reported the incident to her friends, who
accompanied her to the local barangay, where she filed a complaint.
Balleno was arrested and subsequently charged with rape. During the trial,
Jacquelyn testified against Balleno, while he denied the charge and
claimed that Jacquelyn fabricated the story because she wanted her real
father to be reunited with her mother.

Issue:
Whether or not Rodrigo Balleno is guilty of the crime of rape.

Held:
Yes, Rodrigo Balleno was found guilty of rape. The court determined that
the prosecution had established the essential elements of rape beyond a
reasonable doubt, underscoring the importance of Jacquelyn's credibility
as a witness.

The court noted that minor discrepancies between her sworn statement
and her testimony did not diminish her credibility, as affidavits are often
incomplete and subject to interpretation. Furthermore, the absence of
physical injuries or spermatozoa did not negate the occurrence of rape, as
the law does not require such evidence for a conviction. The court
reiterated that the force involved in rape does not need to be irresistible; it
is sufficient that it is present and effective. The court also clarified that the
inaccurate description of the relationship between Balleno and Jacquelyn
in the information precluded a conviction for qualified rape but did not
impact the conviction for simple rape. The ruling emphasized that
Jacquelyn's clear and consistent testimony, coupled with the lack of any
apparent motive to fabricate the charges, justified the affirmation of her
claims. Ultimately, the court's decision was firmly rooted in established
jurisprudence regarding the nature of rape and the evidentiary standards
necessary for conviction.

6. People v. Santiago
G.R. No. 196970
April 2, 2024

Facts:
 On December 25, 2004, and January 21, 2005, in Barangays Pingit and
Zabali, both in the Municipality of Baler, Province of Aurora, Santiago
forcibly had carnal knowledge of the eleven-year-old “AAA” by means of
threats and intimidation. During his arraignment on March 24, 2006,
Santiago pleaded not guilty. However, the Regional Trial Court of Baler,
Aurora, Branch 96, found his defense of denial and alibi unconvincing,
especially given "AAA's" positive identification of him. Consequently, on
June 7, 2007, the trial court convicted Santiago of two counts of simple
rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. Additionally,
he was ordered to pay "AAA" Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
Php100,000.00 as moral damages, and Php50,000.00 as exemplary
damages. Santiago appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
trial court's decision in its entirety on October 21, 2010. Santiago then
brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Rene Santiago of rape.

Held:
No, the trial court did not err in convicting Rene Santiago of rape. The
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Santiago for two counts of
simple rape.

The Court upheld the conviction of Santiago, noting that his change in
defense from denial and alibi to claims of consensual intercourse only
served to undermine his credibility. The Court observed that Santiago's
sudden admission of sexual intercourse with "AAA" but claiming it was
consensual was a desperate attempt to shift his defense, which further
highlighted his lack of credibility. Moreover, the Court also found that
"AAA's" testimony was credible and consistent on the essential elements
of the crime. Despite minor inconsistencies between her sworn statement
and her court testimony, the Court held that such discrepancies did not
diminish her credibility. The Court emphasized that affidavits are often
incomplete and that open court declarations generally take precedence
over written affidavits.

7. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

453 Phil. 1059

Facts:
 The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition against Ferdinand Marcos and
Imelda Marcos for the forfeiture of an amount equivalent to $365 Million
US Dollars alleged to be ill-gotten wealth.

The Marcoses denied the allegation that they stashed away the country’s
wealth in Switzerland. Their denial states that “Respondents specifically
DENY paragraph 23 insofar as it alleges that Respondents clandestinely
stashed the country’s wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers
and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth
being that Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired.” In
2000, the Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment averring that the
essential facts for the forfeiture were admitted by the respondents, leaving
no genuine issue of material fact.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents’ denials were sufficient to properly contest
the material allegations of the petition.

Held:
No, the respondents’ denials were not sufficient to properly contest the
material allegations of the petition.

The Court noted that their denial had the earmark of what is called in the
law on pleadings as a negative pregnant, that is, a denial pregnant with
the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which
are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it
was directed at. A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression
which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind
favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of
the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with
qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so
qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held that the qualifying
circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.

The Court held that the respondents’ denial being a negative pregnant, it
is tantamount to an admission.

8. Espineli vs. People

G.R. No. 179535
June 9, 2014

Facts:
 On December 15, 1996, Senior Desk Coordinator at DZMM, Alberto Berbon
y Downie, was shot multiple times in front of his house in Imus, Cavite by
unidentified assailants who fled the scene in a red car. Jose Espineli (aka
Danilo Espineli), Sotero Paredes, and three unidentified individuals were
implicated in the crime. On July 1, 1997, Espineli was arrested and during
his arraignment, pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including

a sworn statement from a certain Romeo Reyes, who claimed to have seen
Espineli and Paredes armed and discussing their intent to kill Berbon on
the day of the incident.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in admitting and giving
probative value to the sworn statement of Romero Reyes.

Held:
No, the Court of Appeals did not err in admitting and giving probative
value to the sworn statement of Romero Reyes. The Court held that
circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a conviction if it forms an
unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to
the accused's guilt.

Here, the circumstantial evidence included Reyes' statement about

Espineli's intent to kill Berbon, the identification of the red car used in the
crime, and the nature of the gunshot wounds. The Court found that these
pieces of evidence, taken together, were consistent with Espineli's guilt
and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. The Court also noted that the
hearsay rule did not apply to Reyes' statement because it was presented
to establish that the statement was made, not to prove its truth. Moreover,
the notarized statement enjoyed a presumption of authenticity and due
execution.

9. People vs. Ayupan

G.R. No. 140550
February 13, 2002

Facts:
 On June 26, 1984, at around midnight, Helen Batislaong, along with her
younger sister and cousin, heard a commotion inside the dance hall of
Crossing Hamod, Batad, Iloilo Province. She ran to the center of the dance
floor out of concern that her cousin might be involved in the fight. She
then saw a bloodied Francisco Mendoza on the floor. Edgar Ayupan, while
kneeling over the victim, repeatedly stabbed the latter in the chest which
led to his eventual death.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Helen Batislaong,

the lone witness. The trial court gave full faith and credence to her
testimony after recognizing that Helen had the opportunity to see and
observe the specific details of the crime.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of the lone
prosecution witness despite the lack of corroboration.

Held:
No, the trial court did not err in relying on the testimony of the lone
prosecution witness despite the lack of corroboration. The Court held that
the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Helen Batislaong, was
credible and sufficient to support a conviction.

The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if found to

be positive, categorical, and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction.
Batislaong's testimony was deemed truthful and sincere, delivered in a
spontaneous, natural, and straightforward manner. The Court reiterated
that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters in
assessing its sufficiency. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when
there are reasons to suspect that the witness may have been untruthful or
their observation inaccurate. The Court found no reason to disturb the
factual findings of the RTC, which had the unique advantage of observing
the witness firsthand.

10. Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 157294-95
November 30, 2006

Facts:
 Petitioner Joseph Victor G. Ejercito challenged the Sandiganbayan’s
issuance of subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum for the production of
documents related to his bank accounts. The subpoenas were in relation to
a criminal case against Joseph Ejercito Estrada et al. charging them for
plunder under Republic Act No. 7080. He filed motions to quash the
subpoenas, arguing that his bank accounts were protected by the Secrecy
of Bank Deposits Law or Republic Act No. 1405 and did not fall under any
of the exceptions provided in the said law.

The Sandiganbayan denied his motions on February 7 and 12, 2003, and
his subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 11, 2003. Ejercito
then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asserting that the
subpoenas violated his rights to due process and privacy.

Issue:
Whether or not the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree applies in the
present case.

Held:
No, the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree will not apply in the
present case.

The Court held that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle, which states
that once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it
is also inadmissible, does not apply in this case. In the first place, R.A.
1405 does not provide for the application of this rule. Moreover, there is no
basis for applying the same in this case since the primary source for the
detailed information regarding petitioner's bank accounts at the
investigation previously conducted by the Ombudsman a was lawful.

11. Zulueta vs. CA

G.R. No. 107383
February 20, 1996

Facts:
On March 26, 1982, Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta, who is the wife of private
respondent Dr. Alfredo Martin, accompanied by her mother, a driver, and
Dr. Martin's secretary, forcibly entered her husband’s clinic and proceeded
to open drawers and cabinets without her husband’s knowledge or consent
and seized 157 documents, including private correspondence between
Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, canceled checks,
diaries, Martin's passport, and photographs. Zulueta intended to use these
documents as evidence in a legal separation case and a case for Martin's
disqualification from practicing medicine.

Dr. Martin subsequently filed an action before the RTC of Manila, Branch X,
seeking the recovery of the documents and damages. The RTC ruled in
favor of Dr. Martin, declaring him the exclusive owner of the seized
documents and ordering Zulueta to return them. The court also awarded
Dr. Martin nominal and moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of the
suit. Additionally, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction,
enjoining Zulueta from using the documents as evidence. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, leading Zulueta to file a petition for
review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the documents and papers seized by Cecilia Zulueta from
Dr. Martin’s clinic without his knowledge and consent are admissible as
evidence.

Held:
No, the documents and papers seized by Cecilia Zulueta from Dr. Martin’s
clinic without his knowledge and consent are not admissible as evidence.

The Supreme Court held that the documents and papers seized by Zulueta
from her husband’s clinic without his knowledge and consent are
inadmissible as evidence emphasizing the constitutional injunction that
declares the privacy of communication and correspondence to be
inviolable. This protection applies regardless of the relationship between
the parties involved, including spouses. The only exceptions to this
constitutional protection are lawful orders from a court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any evidence
obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.

The Court further noted that the intimacies between husband and wife do
not justify one spouse in breaking into the other's private spaces to obtain
evidence of marital infidelity. Marriage does not strip an individual of their
right to privacy, and the constitutional protection remains available to both
spouses. The law ensures absolute freedom of communication between
spouses by making it privileged, and neither spouse may testify for or
 against the other without the affected spouse's consent while the marriage
subsists. However, this freedom of communication does not compel one
spouse to share all knowledge with the other, and it does not negate the
duty of fidelity owed by each spouse to the other.

12. Republic Glass Corp. vs. Qua

G.R. No. 144413
July 30, 2004

Facts:
Republic Glass Corporation, Gervel, Inc. (Gervel), and Lawrence C. Qua,
were stockholders of Ladtek, Inc. Ladtek obtained loans from Metrobank
and PDCP, with RGC, Gervel, and Qua acting as sureties. They executed
Agreements for Contribution, Indemnity, and Pledge of Shares of Stocks,
which stipulated that in case of default, the parties would reimburse each
other proportionately. Qua pledged 1,892,360 common shares of General
Milling Corporation as security.

Ladtek defaulted which prompted Metrobank to file a collection case

against Ladtek, RGC, Gervel, and Qua. RGC and Gervel paid Metrobank P7
million, leading to a waiver and quitclaim in their favor and the dismissal
of the case against them. RGC and Gervel then demanded Qua to
reimburse P3,860,646, which he refused, prompting them to foreclose on
Qua's pledged shares. Qua filed a complaint for injunction and damages to
prevent the foreclosure. The RTC of Makati, initially ruled in Qua's favor,
ordering the return of the foreclosed shares. However, upon
reconsideration, the RTC dismissed Qua's complaint. Qua appealed, and
the Court of Appeals reinstated the RTC's initial decision, leading to the
present petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Qua’s conflicting statement in the collection case and
foreclosure case would constitute a judicial admission.

Held:
No, Qua’s conflicting statement in the collection case and foreclosure case
would not constitute a judicial admission.

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written,

made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.

A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings filed by the
parties, (b) during the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. The Court
held that the elements of judicial admissions are absent in this case. Qua
made conflicting statements in Collection Case No. 8364 and in
Foreclosure Case No. 88-2643, and not in the same case as required in
Section 4 of Rule 129.

To constitute judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same

case in which it is offered. If made in another case or in another court, the
 fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact,
although if made in a judicial proceeding it is entitled to greater weight.

13. Palma Development Corp. vs. Municipality of Malangas

G.R. No. 152492
October 16, 2003

Facts:
Petitioner Palma Development Corporation, engaged in milling and selling
rice and corn to wholesalers in Zamboanga City, utilized the municipal port
of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur, as a transshipment point for its goods.
The port and the surrounding roads leading to it were maintained by the
Municipality of Malangas.

On January 16, 1994, the municipality enacted Municipal Revenue Code

No. 09, Series of 1993, which was approved by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur on August 4, 1994. The ordinance
imposed service fees on vehicles and goods passing through the municipal
roads and wharf. Palma Development Corporation paid these fees under
protest, arguing that the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No.
7160) did not authorize municipalities to tax goods and vehicles merely
passing through their jurisdictions. Consequently, on November 20, 1995,
Palma filed an action for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pagadian City, challenging the validity of Section 5G.01. The RTC
declared the entire Municipal Revenue Code No. 09 as ultra vires and null
and void. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) vacated the RTC's decision
and remanded the case for further reception of evidence, prompting Palma
to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the remanding of the case is no longer necessary on the
basis of the facts established by the admissions of the parties.

Held:
Yes, the remanding of the case is no longer necessary on the basis of the
facts established by the admissions of the parties.

The Court held that the allegations made in the present case are formal
judicial admissions that are conclusive upon the parties making them and
require no further proof in accordance with Section 4 of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court which provides that:

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written,

made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.
Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, in the course of the
trial, or in other proceedings in the same case are conclusive. No further
evidence is required to prove them. Moreover, they cannot be contradicted
unless it is shown that they have been made through palpable mistake, or
that they have not been made at all.
14. People vs. Olarte
G.R. No. 233209
March 11, 2019

Facts:
The accused-appellant, Herofil N. Olarte, was charged with illegal
possession of a hand grenade and an unlicensed pistol, which was later
found to be a replica. The incident took place on July 19, 2014, at
approximately 1:30 PM at LBC Pabayo-Chavez Streets, Cagayan de Oro
City.
 Police Officers Reggie M. Intud and Pablo B. Monilar, Jr., members of Task
Force "Boy Solo," were conducting surveillance in response to reports of a
lone gunman responsible for several robberies in the area. They observed
Olarte, who resembled the suspect known as "Boy Solo," pulling out a
firearm as he approached an LBC branch. The officers pursued and
arrested Olarte near Ororama Superstore in Cogon. During the arrest, they
discovered a .25 caliber pistol replica, a fragmentation grenade with an
M204A2 fuse assembly, a flathead screwdriver, and a sachet of
methamphetamine hydrochloride on his person. Olarte was then taken to
Police Station 1-Divisoria, where the incident was recorded, and the
grenade was handed over to the PNP Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team.

Issue:
Whether or not the hand grenade seized was admissible as evidence
despite the absence of identifying marks and the alleged defects in the
chain of custody.

Held:
Yes, the hand grenade seized was admissible as evidence despite the
absence of identifying marks and the alleged defects in the chain of
custody.

The Court ruled that the hand grenade was a unique object, and its
authenticity was established through the testimonies of the prosecution's
witnesses. The chain of custody was unbroken, and the absence of the
marking "RMI2" on the grenade did not affect its evidentiary value. The
prosecution's witnesses consistently testified that the grenade presented
in court was the same one confiscated from Olarte.

15. Sison vs. People

G.R. Nos. 108208-83
November 16, 1995

Facts:
On July 27, 1986, at the Luneta in manila, during a rally organized by
Marcos loyalists who gathered in the said area despite being denied
permit, Stephen Salcedo, a known supporter of President Corazon Aquino
and who at that time was wearing yellow, was chased, beaten, and
ultimately killed by a group of loyalists. Several individuals, including
Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos, and Joselito
Tamayo, were charged with his murder. The trial court found them guilty of
murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion temporal.
Annie Ferrer was convicted as an accomplice.

During the trial, the prosecution presented photographs as evidence which

showed the accused mauling Salcedo. However, the person who took the
photograph was not presented as a witness but instead the companions of
the victim who were also in the photo were presented to testify that they
were the ones in the photo along with the deceased Salcedo.

The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs contending

that the person who took the photographs should have been presented as
witness.

Issue:
Whether or not the person who took the photographs should have been
presented as witness.

Held:
No, the person who took the photographs need not be presented as
witness in the present case.

The Court held that the rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when
presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its
production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct
representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is
determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the
crime.

The Court further held that the photographer, however, is not the only
witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be
proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or
by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject
to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be
identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can
testify to its exactness and accuracy.[53]
16. People vs. Vallejo
G.R. No. 144656
May 9, 2002

Facts:
The accused-appellant Gerrico Vallejo was found guilty of rape with
homicide by the RTC of Cavite City. On July 10, 1999, in Rosario, Cavite,
nine-year-old Daisy Diolola was raped and murdered.

Daisy was last seen alive with the accused-appellant, who was later found
to have bloodstains on his clothes matching the victim's blood type. The
victim's body was discovered tied to a tree root by a river. The prosecution
presented ten witnesses, including the victim's mother, neighbors, police
officers, and forensic experts. The evidence included physical
examinations, DNA tests, and extrajudicial confessions. The trial court
sentenced Vallejo to death and ordered him to indemnify the victim's heirs.
Vallejo appealed the decision, arguing the insufficiency of circumstantial
evidence, the inadmissibility of his oral confessions, and the coercion
involved in obtaining his written confession.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution sufficient to convict Vallejo of rape with homicide.
2. Whether or not the oral confessions of Vallejo are admissible in
evidence despite being hearsay.
3. Whether or not the written extrajudicial confession of the accused-
appellant obtained through force and intimidation, and thus
inadmissible.

Held:
1. Yes, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient
to convict Vallejo of rape with homicide.

The Supreme Court ruled that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to

sustain a conviction provided that it meets the criteria under Rule 133,
Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The Court found that the
combination of circumstances, such as the victim being last seen with
the accused-appellant, the bloodstains on his clothes matching the
victim's blood type, and the DNA evidence, established the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Yes, the oral confessions of Vallejo are admissible in evidence despite

being hearsay.

The Court held that the oral confessions made to the municipal mayor
and the NBI Forensic Biologist were admissible since they were
spontaneous, free, and voluntary admissions of guilt. The Court noted
that the mayor's questions were not in the nature of an interrogation
but rather an act of benevolence. The forensic biologist's questions
were out of personal curiosity and not part of his official tasks.

3. No, the written extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant was

not obtained through force and intimidation. The same not having been
obtained through force and intimidation, the same are admissible.

The Court found no conclusive evidence to support the accused-

appellant's claim of coercion and torture in obtaining his written
confession. The physical examination conducted by Dr. Antonio Vertido
did not show injuries consistent with the alleged torture. The Court
emphasized that extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary
unless proven otherwise. The totality of the evidence, including the
circumstantial evidence and the DNA analysis, supported the
conviction.