Lawyerly

GR No. 174673

2016-01-11

LEONEN, J.

The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court.[137] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 167510

2015-07-08

ALVIN MERCADO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

The petitioner was not charged with making an entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure, or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or refund of duties, other acts punishable under Section 3602 of the TCCP. He was specifically charged only of making an entry by means of a false and fraudulent invoice and declaration. The importance of properly alleging the nature and cause of the accusation in the information should not ever be taken for granted by the State. To determine whether or not the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the Court must look at the text and tenor of the information to determine and to know what was the offense charged against him. It is elementary that to try him for and convict him of an offense other than that charged in the information would be violative of his Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. As such, he could not be tried for and convicted of a crime, even if duly proved, unless the crime was properly and fully alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.[33]

GR No. 208749

2014-11-26

PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG

REYES, J.

In Patula v. People,[59] the Court rendered a helpful disquisition on hearsay evidence, why it must be rejected and treated as inadmissible, and how it can be avoided:To elucidate why the Prosecution's hearsay evidence was unreliable and untrustworthy, and thus devoid of probative value, reference is made to Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a rule that states that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her own perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.

AM No. SB-14-21-J

2014-09-23

ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING

PER CURIAM

xxxx[8]

GR No. 194234

2014-06-18

PEOPLE v. JAYSON CRUZ Y TECSON

REYES, J.

The discrepancies in Cruz's narration nevertheless, should not be taken against him. In Patula v. People,[28] the Court held that: [I]n all criminal Prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it.[29] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 188881

2014-04-21

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SERENO, C.J.

The Second Resolution, while issued after petitioner had submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence, noted that all the documents contained therein were photocopies.[20] It stated that a mere certification from the Clerk of Court that they "appear to be the original copy" would not suffice. The Sandiganbayan still admitted them as evidence, yet the only reason cited for doing so was liberality, viz: "There is nothing in the rules which categorically prohibits the admission of additional documentary evidence when called for as a case progress [sic]. What is clear is that it is the Court's discretion to allow or disallow its reception."[21] Thus, the Sandiganbayan fittingly corrected itself when once and for all, it excluded the photocopies in its latest Resolution.

GR Nos. 172532 & 172544-45

2013-11-20

PRIMO C. MIRO v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS

BRION, J.

The following discussion, made in Patula v. People of the Philippines,[32] is particularly instructive: Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to prove that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that the accused uttered those words. This kind of utterance is hearsay in character but is not legal hearsay. The distinction is, therefore, between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies. [citations omitted]

GR No. 181163

2013-07-24

ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19,[33] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.[34]

GR No. 166967

2013-01-28

EDNA J. JACA v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts within his or her personal knowledge.[64] This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed fact.[65] Corollarily, a document offered as proof of its contents has to be authenticated in the manner provided in the rules, that is, by the person with personal knowledge of the facts stated in the document.[66]

GR No. 189330

2012-11-28

FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE v. LOUIE CATALAN Y DEDALA

BERSAMIN, J.

Given the foregoing, the accused deserves exculpation, not because we accord credence to his defense of frame-up but because the Prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As we declared in Patula v. People:[32]

GR No. 173474

2012-08-29

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court holds that the guilt of Belocura for the crime charged was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion of his guilt, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him. Every evidence favoring him must be duly considered. Indeed, the presumption of innocence in his favor was not overcome. Hence, his acquittal should follow, for, as the Court fittingly said in Patula v. People:[48]

GR No. 200134

2012-08-15

ROBERTO OTERO v. ROGER TAN

REYES, J.

A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.[24]

	GR No. 174673 2016-01-11	REPUBLIC v. FE ROA GIMENEZ LEONEN, J.
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court.[137] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 167510 2015-07-08	ALVIN MERCADO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner was not charged with making an entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure, or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or refund of duties, other acts punishable under Section 3602 of the TCCP. He was specifically charged only of making an entry by means of a false and fraudulent invoice and declaration. The importance of properly alleging the nature and cause of the accusation in the information should not ever be taken for granted by the State. To determine whether or not the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the Court must look at the text and tenor of the information to determine and to know what was the offense charged against him. It is elementary that to try him for and convict him of an offense other than that charged in the information would be violative of his Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. As such, he could not be tried for and convicted of a crime, even if duly proved, unless the crime was properly and fully alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.[33]
	GR No. 208749 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG REYES, J.
In Patula v. People,[59] the Court rendered a helpful disquisition on hearsay evidence, why it must be rejected and treated as inadmissible, and how it can be avoided:To elucidate why the Prosecution's hearsay evidence was unreliable and untrustworthy, and thus devoid of probative value, reference is made to Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a rule that states that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her own perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.
	AM No. SB-14-21-J 2014-09-23	ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING PER CURIAM
xxxx[8]
	GR No. 194234 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. JAYSON CRUZ Y TECSON REYES, J.
The discrepancies in Cruz's narration nevertheless, should not be taken against him. In Patula v. People,[28] the Court held that: [I]n all criminal Prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it.[29] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 188881 2014-04-21	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
The Second Resolution, while issued after petitioner had submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence, noted that all the documents contained therein were photocopies.[20] It stated that a mere certification from the Clerk of Court that they "appear to be the original copy" would not suffice. The Sandiganbayan still admitted them as evidence, yet the only reason cited for doing so was liberality, viz: "There is nothing in the rules which categorically prohibits the admission of additional documentary evidence when called for as a case progress [sic]. What is clear is that it is the Court's discretion to allow or disallow its reception."[21] Thus, the Sandiganbayan fittingly corrected itself when once and for all, it excluded the photocopies in its latest Resolution.
	GR Nos. 172532 & 172544-45 2013-11-20	PRIMO C. MIRO v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS BRION, J.
The following discussion, made in Patula v. People of the Philippines,[32] is particularly instructive: Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to prove that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that the accused uttered those words. This kind of utterance is hearsay in character but is not legal hearsay. The distinction is, therefore, between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies. [citations omitted]
	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19,[33] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.[34]
	GR No. 166967 2013-01-28	EDNA J. JACA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts within his or her personal knowledge.[64] This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed fact.[65] Corollarily, a document offered as proof of its contents has to be authenticated in the manner provided in the rules, that is, by the person with personal knowledge of the facts stated in the document.[66]
	GR No. 189330 2012-11-28	FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE v. LOUIE CATALAN Y DEDALA BERSAMIN, J.
Given the foregoing, the accused deserves exculpation, not because we accord credence to his defense of frame-up but because the Prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As we declared in Patula v. People:[32]
	GR No. 173474 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
The Court holds that the guilt of Belocura for the crime charged was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion of his guilt, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him. Every evidence favoring him must be duly considered. Indeed, the presumption of innocence in his favor was not overcome. Hence, his acquittal should follow, for, as the Court fittingly said in Patula v. People:[48]
	GR No. 200134 2012-08-15	ROBERTO OTERO v. ROGER TAN REYES, J.
A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.[24]

ANNA LERIMA PATULA v. PEOPLE