Remedial Law - Evidence Case Digest DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW LIST OF CASES Evidence GENERAL PRINCIPLES Concept of Evidence Factum probans and factum probandum Applicability of the Rules of Evidence Evidence vs. Proof A. Admissibility (Rule 128, Section 3) 1. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 2. People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010 B. Judicial Notice (Rule 129) 1. Corinthian Garden v. Spouses Tanjangco, G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008. 2. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008 3. “G” Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers, G.R. No. 160236, October 16, 2009. 4. Spouses Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009. C. Judicial Admission (Rule 129) 1. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008. 2. Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sport Complex, G.R. No. 174154. 3. Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010. D. Object Evidence 1. BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008 2. People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167 E. Paraffin Test 1. People v. Bududan, G.R. No. 178196, Auguat 6, 2008 2. People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004 F. Photograph as Evidence 1. Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, November 16, 1995 2. Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118441, January 18, 2000 G. Chain of Custody 1. People v. Anita Miranba, G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016 2. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 3. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 4. People v. Ramil Doria and Rommel Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015 5. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 9, 2008 1 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 6. Section 21, Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) H. DNA Evidence 1. People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192 2. People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504 3. In Re Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December 14, 2007 I. Documentary Evidence J. Best Evidence Rule/Secondary Evidence (Rule 130) 1. Republic v. Imelda “Imee” Marcos-Manotoc, et al., G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012 2. Edsa Shangrila v. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008 3. Chua Gaw v. Chua G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008 4. Sansan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008 5. DECS v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 146596, January 26, 2005 6. Rogelio Dantis v. Julio Maghinang, Jr. , G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013 K. Electronic Evidence 1. People v. Noel Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204895, March 10, 2014 2. MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Sangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007 L. Parole Evidence Rule 1. ACI Phil. Inc. v. Coquia, G.R. No. 174466, July 14, 2008 2. Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp. Group, G.R. No. 164326, October 17, 2008. 3. Marquez v. Espejo, G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010 M. Public Documents 1. Suerte-Felipe v. People, G.R. No. 170974, March 3, 2008 2. Republic of the Philippinesvs.Carmen Santorio Galeno G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017 N. Authentication and Proof of Documents 1. Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764 2. Llemos v. Llemos, G.R. No. 150162, January 26, 2007 3. Domingo v. Robles, 453 SCRA 812 4. St. Mary’s Farm, Inc. v. Prime Real Porperties, Inc., G.R. No. 158144, July 31, 2008 O. Interpretation of Documents P. Testimonial Evidence 1. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R. NO. 155550, January 31, 2008 Q. Disqualification by a Reason of Immaturity 1. People v. Golimlim, G.R. No. 145225, April 2, 2004 R. Disqualification by a Reason of Death 1. Sanson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127745, April 22, 2003 2 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2. Tan v. CA, 295 SCRA 755 3. Razon v. CA, 207 SCRA 234 4. Bordalba v. CA, 374 SCA 555 S. Marital Disqualification Rule (Section 22, Rule 130) 1. Alvarez v. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 2. People v. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 3. People v. Quidato, 297 SCRA 1 T. Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communication 1. Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. 5110, May 26, 2005 2. Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996 3. People v. Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, March 5, 2003 4. Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. 117740, October 30, 1998 5. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 6. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. NO. 169777, April 25, 2006 7. Judicial Privilege Per Curiam Decision of the Supreme Court in connection with the Letter of the House of Prosecution Panel to Subpoena Justices of the Supreme Court, February 14, 2012 U. Examination of a witness -Judicial Affidavit Rule V. Extrajudicial Confessions/Confession 1. People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008 2. People v. Satorre, G.R. No. 133858, August 12, 2003 W. Positive Identification 1. People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008 2. People of the Philippines v. Crisente Pepaño Nuñez, G.R. No. 209342, October 4, 2017 X. Documented Alibi 1. Lejano v. People, 2010 Y. Offer of Compromise 1. People v. Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348, November 26, 2008 Z. Admission against interest 1. Rufina Patis v. Alusitain, 434 SCRA 419 AA. Admission by a partner/agent 1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 BB. Admission by privies 1. Gevero v. IAC, 189 SCRA 201 CC. Admission by Conspirator 1. Tamargo v. Awigan. G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010 3 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2. People v. Vda. De Ramos, 403 SCRA 167 3. People v. Baharan, 639 SCRA 157 DD. Admission by silence 1. Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108 EE. Similar Conduct 1. Bank of Commerce v. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, February 9, 2006 FF. Dying Declaration 1. People v. Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010 GG. Res Gestae 1. Marturillas v. People G.R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006 HH. Entries in the Regular Course of Business 1. Security Bank v. Gan, G.R. No. 150464, June 27, 2006 II. Commercial List 1. Meralco v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, February 22, 2000 JJ. Opinion Rule 1. Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897, April 11, 2005 KK. Character Evidence 1. People v. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002 LL. Rule on Examination of Child Witness 1. People v. Canete, G.R. No. 491920, March 28, 2003 MM. Burden of Proof 1. Manongsong v. Estimo, G.R. No. 136773, June 25, 2003 2. Philippine Trust Company (also known as Philtrust Bank), Petitioner vs Redentor R. Gabinete, Shangrila Realty Corporation and Elisa T. Tan, Respondents, G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 2017 3. Susan A. Yap vs. Elizabeth Lagtapon, G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017 NN. Conclusive Presumption 1. Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty, G.R. No. 144268, August 30, 2006 OO. Adverse Party Witness 1. Chua Gaw v. Gaw, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008 PP. Formal Offer Of Evidence 1. Atlas Consolidated v. CIR, G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008 2. Dizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008 3. Republic of the Philippines v. Valentina Espinosa, Registrar of Deeds of Negros Occidental et.al., G.R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017 4 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW QQ. Tender of Excluded Evidence 1. Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa, A.M.RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006 RR. Preponderance of Evidence 1. Raymundo v. Lunaria, G.R. No. 171036, October 17, 2008 SS. Corpus Delicti 1. Rimorin v. People, G.R. No. 146481, April 30, 2003 TT. Circumstantial Evidence 1. People v. Quizon, G.R. No. 142532, November 18, 2003 2. People v. Ruben Baron G.R. No. 213215, January 11, 2016 5 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., Petitioners, NAGMAMALASAKIT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, Petitioner-in- intervention, WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-in-intervention - versus - THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON, REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. AND REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, Respondents, JAIME N. SORIANO, Respondent-in-Intervention, SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, Respondent-in-intervention G.R. No. 160261, EN BANC, November 10, 2003, CARPIO MORALES, J. The claim, therefore, that this Court by judicially entangling itself with the process of impeachment has effectively set up a regime of judicial supremacy, is patently without basis in fact and in law. This Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government.