Digest in Evidence
1. Minerva Gomez-Castillo vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 187231
Bersamin, J.
It is well settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law. As such, jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the
will of the parties; nor be acquired through waiver nor enlarged by the omission of the parties; nor
conferred by any acquiescence of the court. The allocation of jurisdiction is vested in Congress and
cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the government.
FACTS:
Petitioner Minerva Gomez-Castillo and respondent Strike P. Revilla both run for municipal
mayor of Bacoor, Cavite last May 14, 2007 local elections. The respondent won. Petitioner then filed an
electoral protest before RTC Branch 19 of Imus, Cavite. Respondent then sought the dismissal of the
protest contending that it violates Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 54-2007 which designates
RTC 22 and 88 of Imus, Cavite as the proper venue to file electoral protest cases. They also averred that
even though proper, the filing of electoral protest will still fail for the very reason that the reglementary
period for filing is not complied with for it is way beyond the 5-day period upon promulgation. It also
appears that appeal bond was not posted.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was held untenable by COMELEC. Hence, this action.
ISSUE:
Does Section 13 of Rule 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC designate the RTC Branch that has jurisdiction
over an election contest or does it merely designate the proper venue for filing?
In case the RTC was incorrect, is the error enough to warrant the reversal of its order of
dismissal despite having attained finality?
RULING:
For the first issue, it is only plain error for RTC to dismiss the election protest of Minerva Gomez-
Castillo. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by will of the parties. It is vested in Congress through
the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code. Hence, what RTC Branch 19
should have done is to transfer the case to RTC Branch 22 or 88 which is the proper venue.
As regards the second issue, Castillo’s tardy appeal should be dismissed.
The period of appeal and the perfection of an appeal and not mere technicalities to be so lightly
regarded for they are essential to the finality of judgments, a motion underlying the stability of our
judicial system.
2. People vs. Fronda
G.R. No. 130602, 15 March 2000
Davide, Jr. C.J.
To be caught in flagrante delicto, therefore, necessarily implies positive identification by the
eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such is a “direct evidence” of culpability, which is “that proves the fact
in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.”
FACTS:
Accused Michael Fronda, Antonio Flora and Lauro Millamina, Jr., were all charged by violation of
Dangerous Drugs Law. That on or about the 8 th day of October 1998, PO2 Harry Bedey and PO3 June
Corpuz allegedly caught the three accused selling marijuana to them. The three were charged with
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. However, Flora and Millamina were granted with suspended
sentence for being minors at the time of the commission of the crime. Fronda, on the other hand,
alleges that (a) the trial court erred in convicting him solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence,
and in totally disregarding the evidence of the defense; (b) the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient
to warrant a conviction; and (c) there being no factual or legal basis, the decision is a complete
nullity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Michael Fronda, Antonio Flora and Lauro Millamina is culpable for violation of
Dangerous Drugs Law.
RULING:
The High Court reversed the decision of RTC Baguio. It acquitted Fronda. But for Flora and
Millamina, the High Court ruled that Rule 122, Sec. 11 (a) of the Rules of Court should govern. An
appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect whose who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
As to Michael Fronda, the High Court rules that Fronda’s culpability is not established by direct
evidence. The evidence against Fronda and his co-accused are circumstantial in nature. Far from
being caught in flagrante delicto, their culpability cannot be established for PO2 Bedey and PO3
Corpuz cannot determine with certainty that it was Fronda who gave them the bag of marijuana.
They only testified that “somebody” gave them the drugs and neither did they attempt to search
the room if there are other persons inside.
3. People vs. Matito
G.R. No. 144405, 24 February 2004
Panganiban, J.
Circumstantial evidence, when demonstrated with clarity and forcefulness, may be the sole
basis of a criminal conviction. It cannot be overturned by bare denials or hackneyed alibis.
FACTS:
Ferdinand Matito was accused for murder for one Mariano Raymundo. The prosecution alleged
that Filomena Raymundo, wife of the victim, saw that her husband was shot in the neck and her
husband confessed that Ferdinand shot him. The accused countered with an alibi stating among
others that he was at his home with his family on the night of the incident.
ISSUE:
Whether Ferdinand Matito is guilty of the crime of murder.
RULING:
Appeal is partly meritorious. He is guilty of the crime of homicide. On the strength of the
circumstantial evidence proven in the current case, we hold that the court a quo did not err in the
convicting appellant of the crime charged. The combination of the circumstances comprising such
evidence forms an unbroken chain that points to appellant, to the exclusion of all others, as the
perpetrator of the crime. Circumstantial evidence meets the following requirements: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved and (3)
combination of all the circumstances in such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
4. People vs. Thedore Bernal
G.R. No. 113685
Romero, J.
Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator.
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Theodore Bernal and two others were charged with the crime of kidnapping
in RTC of Davao City. They were charged with kidnapping a certain Openda Jr., the latter being a
paramour of the accused’s wife, was the reason why the victim was kidnapped. The accused, on the
other hand, avers that Openda is a drug pusher. The trial court ruled in favor of the victim. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed the crime of kidnapping.
RULING:
Appeal dismissed; costs against Theodore Bernal.
It is alleged that Openda Jr., is having carnal knowledge to Naty – Bernal’s wife, indubitably
asserting Bernal’s motive to exact revenge.
Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator.
Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence of facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that
the accused was the malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction. All told, during
the trial, blaring it appears that the testimonies of Enriquez, Racasa and Sagarino are sufficient to
support Bernal’s conviction.
5. People vs. Olivia
G.R. No. 106826, 18 January 2001
Quisumbing, J.
It is settled that circumstantial evidence can be a basis for conviction provided that the following
requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
Oscar Oliva, together with all of the accused, were charged for the crime of kidnapping with
murder. That on 26 May 1986, one Jacinto Mabojos, Jr. a.k.a. “Dagoy” was abducted by Ka Ambot
et.al. at Masbate. He was later on found as a cadaver so the information filed in court changed from
kidnapping to kidnapping with murder. Trial ensued. There were all charged and found guilty but
not to one Joel Cinco. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellants are guilty for the crime of murder.
RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the ruling of the trial court to homicide since no qualifying
circumstance was proved. However, the Supreme Court discussed that it is true that there are no
direct evidence as to who actually killed Magbojos. However, the evidence is replete with details to
prove the guilt of the appellants. It is settled that conviction may be based on circumstantial
evidence provided that the following requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one
evidence/circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is of a nature identically the same with direct evidence. It is equally direct
evidence of minor facts of such nature that the mind is led intuitively or by a conscious process of
reasoning to the conviction that from them some other fact may be inferred. No greater degree of
certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what
is required is that the be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that
the accused committed the crime.
6. Atwater vs. A.G. Edwards Brokerage Co.
147 Mo. A.436, 126 S.W. 822
Glaflin, Allen J.; Nortoni, J.
In an action to recover money in settlement of stock transactions conducted by defendant as
broker for plaintiff, where defendant counterclaimed. Asking judgment for the amount of an
assigned account growing out of stock transactions, evidence by plaintiff that he intended to
gamble in the transactions out of which his claim as well as the counterclaim arose, while binding
on him, was not conclusive on defendant, as the jury might disbelieve it and find for defendant on
the theory plaintiff was misstating the facts to escape payment.
FACTS:
This is a suit on an account for a balance alleged to be due plaintiff as a result of certain
transactions conducted by the defendant as his agent in the matter of purchases and sales of stocks
and bonds on the market. The defendant admitted that the correctness of the plaintiff’s account,
urged that it arose from gambling and interposed two separate counterclaims on which it prayed
for a judgment against him. During the trial the plaintiff testified that he did not intend to either
receive or deliver the stocks or bonds purchased and sold on his account by the defendant and at
the conclusion of the case, the court dismissed not only the petition but the defendants
counterclaims as well. Hence, the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the agent and the broker can recover counterclaims.
RULING:
Yes. The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded. It may be said that even if the
intention of one party alone were sufficient to defeat the defendant’s right of recovery on the
counterclaims it should have been accorded a haring with respect to that matter so long as the
intention of A.G. Edwards and Sons was not admitted to be unlawful. The defendant is certainly not
conclusively bound by the expressed intention of the plaintiff only unless the jury finds the fact.
7. U.S. v. Manabat
G.R. No. L-16717; 22 December 1921
Ostrand, J.
Corroborating evidence must tend to prove the defendant’s guilt, not merely the credibility of
the accomplice.
FACTS:
Domingo Simeon and Bernardino Manabat were charged for the crime of murder and lesiones
(physical injuries) of one newsboy Leonardo Sacramento and others for explosion last 23 May 1919
at Plaza Goiti during the strike of Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company employees. Manabat
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a lower penalty. However, Simeon appealed and pleaded not
guilty to the case. Hence, this action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Domingo Simeon is guilty.
RULING:
Simeon is not guilty. He was ordered discharged from prison. The High Court ruled that Simeon’s
culpability to the crime cannot be relied to Manabat’s testimony. Corroborating evidence must tend
to prove the defendant’s guilt, not merely the credibility of the accomplice. Therefore, Simeon is
acquitted to the crime.
8. People vs. Cayabyab
G.R. No. 167147
Per Curiam
Without a doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of the local civil
registrar who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of the birth
certificate of Alpha Jane is admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents.
FACTS:
Accused, Genaro F. Cayabyab, was sentenced to death of Pasay RTC for rape committed to six-
year-old Alpha Jane Bertiz.
The accused pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. His defense was denial and alibi as he stated
that on the day of the incident, he was at Villamor Airbase working as a tricycle driver. At 7:30 p.m.,
he went back home and gone to sleep after dinner. It was at 9:30 p.m. when he was urinating that
police took him and mauled him to confess for the crime. RTC gave credence to prosecution and
sentenced him to death penalty. For automatic review from the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed the crime.
RULING:
Yes. On the issue of victim’s minority, the accused did not timely objected the production of the
photocopy of victim’s birth certificate, having admitted the same instead. Therefore, that secondary
evidence became a primary evidence: deemed admitted and the other party is bound thereby.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The death penalty was
affirmed.
