This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the prosecution did not formally offer in evidence the Certificate of Inventory and the formal request for examination of the confiscated substance. Be that as it may, the Court has previously held that even if an exhibit is not formally offered, the same "may still be admitted against the adverse party if, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case."[37] PO3 Velasquez categorically testified that an inventory of the seized drugs was performed, a corresponding certificate was prepared, and a formal request for examination was made. He further narrated that together with the formal request, he submitted and delivered the confiscated drugs to the crime laboratory. On the basis of the said formal request, P/Insp. Roderos examined the specimen and she likewise testified on this. Appellant's counsel even asked the said prosecution witnesses regarding these documents.[38] Considering the said testimonies and the fact that the documents were incorporated in the records of the case, they are therefore admissible against appellant. | |||||
|
2000-01-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In sustaining the claim of respondents over subject property, the appellate court did not commit any reversible error. That the lot claimed by respondents is separate and distinct from the parcel of land bought by Nelson Ranola from the Rural Bank of Talisay is clearly shown by the series of Tax Declarations covering the lot, from year 1950 and by subsequent revisions thereof in 1967, 1974 and 1980. Cesario Alforque had been in continuous possession in the concept of owner of the property since 1950 and declared it in his name in the same year under Tax Declaration No. 00578. Upon his death, his heirs took possession of the property and declared the land in their names under Tax Declarations Nos. 016107, 008605 and 029785. All these tax declarations consistently show that a parcel of land situated in Tuyan, Naga, Cebu, with an area of 495 square meters, bounded on the north by Catalina Repolido, on the south by Pio Navales, on the east by Cesario Alforque or his heirs, and on the west by Rufo Navales or his heirs, was formerly owned by Cesario Alforque and later by his heirs. While it is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute credible proof of a claim of title over the property.[14] Coupled with the Alforques' actual possession of the property since 1946, the tax declarations become strong evidence of ownership.[15] | |||||