This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In maintaining that Arnado used his Philippine passport in travelling abroad in the first quarter of 2010, J. Leonen relies on the copy thereof attached to the rollo of the Maquiling case. But said copy of Arnado's Philippine passport[57] is a mere "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY FROM THE MACIDNE COPY ON FILE" as attested to by Rosario P. Palacio, Records Officer Ill of the Comelec.[58] This is clearly stamped on aforesaid copy of Arnado's Philippine passport. A machine copy or photocopy is a mere secondary evidence.[59] As such, it cannot be admitted in evidence until and unless the offeror has proven the due execution and the subsequent loss or unavailability of the original.[60] In this case, however, Arnado's Philippine passport is not missing. Thus, said photocopy of Arnado's Philippine passport cannot sway us to depart from the uncontroverted certification of the Bureau ofimmigration that Arnado used his US passport on January 12, 2010 and March 23, 2010. Consequently, even assuming that the recently discovered November 30, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance is true and authentic, Arnado once more performed positive acts on January 12, 2010 and March 23, 2010, which effectively negated the alleged November 30, 2009 Affidavit resulting in his disqualification to run for an elective public office. | |||||
|
2014-11-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman,[11] the Court set down the requirements before a party may present secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original document whenever the original copy has been lost: Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Similarly, the issue of the alleged novation involves a question of fact, as it necessarily requires a factual determination on the existence of the following requisites of novation: (1) there must be a previous valid obligation; (2) the parties concerned must agree to a new contract; (3) the old contract must be extinguished; and (4) there must be a valid new contract.[27] Needless to say, the respondent's entitlement to attorney's fees also depends upon the questioned factual findings. | |||||