G.R. No.

180291 July 27, 2010 Respondents Duque, Echavez, Rubio, Gracia, Layco, and Legarda,
together with two others, submitted a letter-explanation to Atty.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON Barbo dated June 6, 2005. Denying that there was a planned mass
F. GARCIA, in his capacity as PRESIDENT and GENERAL MANAGER action, the respondents explained that their act of going to the
of the GSIS, Petitioners, office of the GSIS-IU was a spontaneous reaction after learning
vs. that their former union president was there. Aside from some of
DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, them wanting to show their support, they were interested in that
RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, and hearing as it might also affect them. For her part, respondent
ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA, Respondents. Villaviza submitted a separate letter explaining that she had a
scheduled pre-hearing at the GSIS-IU that day and that she had
informed her immediate supervisor about it, attaching a copy of
DECISION
the order of pre-hearing. These letters were not under oath.4

MENDOZA, J.:
PGM Garcia then filed the above-mentioned formal charges for
Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the of the Service against each of the respondents, all dated June 4,
Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the August 31, 2005. Respondents were again directed to submit their written
2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. answers under oath within three (3) days from receipt
98952, dismissing the petition for certiorari of Government thereof.5 None was filed.
Service Insurance System (GSIS) assailing the Civil Service
Commission's Resolution No. 062177.
On June 29, 2005, PGM Garcia issued separate but similarly
worded decisions finding all seven (7) respondents guilty of the
THE FACTS: charges and meting out the penalty of one (1) year suspension
plus the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.
Petitioner Winston Garcia (PGM Garcia), as President and
General Manager of the GSIS, filed separate formal charges On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) found the
against respondents Dinnah Villaviza, Elizabeth Duque, Adronico respondents guilty of the lesser offense of Violation of
A. Echavez, Rodel Rubio, Rowena Therese B. Gracia, Pilar Layco, Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and reduced the penalty
and Antonio Jose Legarda for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct to reprimand. The CSC ruled that respondents were not denied
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service pursuant to the their right to due process but there was no substantial evidence
Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigation (RPAI) of GSIS to hold them guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
Employees and Officials, III, D, (1, c, f) in relation to Section 52A the Service. Instead,
(3), (20), Rule IV, of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service (URACCS), in accordance with Book V of the
x x x. The actuation of the appellants in going to the IU, wearing
Administrative Code of 1987, committed as follows:
red shirts, to witness a public hearing cannot be considered as
constitutive of such offense. Appellants' (respondents herein)
That on 27 May 2005, respondent, wearing red shirt together assembly at the said office to express support to Velasco, their
with some employees, marched to or appeared simultaneously at Union President, who pledged to defend them against any
or just outside the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass oppression by the GSIS management, can be considered as an
demonstration/rally of protest and support for Messrs. Mario exercise of their freedom of expression, a constitutionally
Molina and Albert Velasco, the latter having surreptitiously guaranteed right.6 x x x
entered the GSIS premises;
PGM Garcia sought reconsideration but was denied. Thus, PGM
xxx xxx xxx Garcia went to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review
under Rule 43 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.7 The CA upheld the
That some of these employees badmouthed the security guards CSC in this wise:
and the GSIS management and defiantly raised clenched fists led
by Atty. Velasco who was barred by Hearing Officer Marvin R. The Civil Service Commission is correct when it found that the act
Gatpayat in an Order dated 24 May 2005 from appearing as sought to be punished hardly falls within the definition of a
counsel for Atty. Molina pursuant to Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A. 6713 prohibited concerted activity or mass action. The petitioners
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards failed to prove that the supposed concerted activity of the
for Public Officials and Employees; respondents resulted in work stoppage and caused prejudice to
the public service. Only about twenty (20) out of more than a
That respondent, together with other employees in utter hundred employees at the main office, joined the activity sought
contempt of CSC Resolution No. 021316, dated 11 October 2002, to be punished. These employees, now respondents in this case,
otherwise known as Omnibus Rules on Prohibited Concerted were assigned at different offices of the petitioner GSIS. Hence,
Mass Actions in the Public Sector caused alarm and heightened despite the belated claim of the petitioners that the act
some employees and disrupted the work at the Investigation Unit complained of had created substantial disturbance inside the
during office hours.2 petitioner GSIS' premises during office hours, there is nothing in
the record that could support the claim that the operational
This episode was earlier reported to PGM Garcia, through an capacity of petitioner GSIS was affected or reduced to substantial
office memorandum dated May 31, 2005, by the Manager of the percentage when respondents gathered at the Investigation Unit.
GSIS Security Department (GSIS-SD), Dennis Nagtalon. On the Despite the hazy claim of the petitioners that the gathering was
same day, the Manager of the GSIS Investigation Unit (GSIS-IU), intended to force the Investigation Unit and petitioner GSIS to be
Atty. Lutgardo Barbo, issued a memorandum to each of the seven lenient in the handling of Atty. Molina's case and allow Atty.
(7) respondents requiring them to explain in writing and under Velasco to represent Atty. Molina in his administrative case
oath within three (3) days why they should not be before petitioner GSIS, there is likewise no concrete and
administratively dealt with.3 convincing evidence to prove that the gathering was made to
demand or force concessions, economic or otherwise from the
1 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
GSIS management or from the government. In fact, in the WHETHER THE CONCERTED ABANDONMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF
separate formal charges filed against the respondents, THEIR POSTS FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR TO HOLD AN UNRULY
petitioners clearly alleged that respondents "marched to or PROTEST INSIDE OFFICE PREMISES ONLY CONSTITUTES THE
appeared simultaneously at or just outside the office of the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF VIOLATION OF REASONABLE
Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration/rally of protest and OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS.9
support for Mssrs. Mario Molina and Albert Velasco, the latter
surreptitiously entered the GSIS premises." Thus, petitioners are The Court finds no merit in the petition.
aware at the outset that the only apparent intention of the
respondents in going to the IU was to show support to Atty. Mario
Petitioners primarily question the probative value accorded to
Molina and Albert Velasco, their union officers. The belated
respondents' letters of explanation in response to the
assertion that the intention of the respondents in going to the IU
memorandum of the GSIS-IU Manager. The respondents never
was to disrupt the operation and pressure the GSIS
filed their answers to the formal charges. The petitioners argue
administration to be lenient with Atty. Mario Molina and Albert
that there being no answers, the allegations in the formal charges
Velasco, is only an afterthought.8
that they filed should have been deemed admitted pursuant to
Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Not in conformity, PGM Garcia is now before us via this Petition
for Review presenting the following:
SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed
admitted.- Material averment in the complaint, other than those
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES as to the amount of liquidated damages, shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a
I complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if
not denied specifically and under oath.
WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY APPLY
SUPPLETORILY THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT ON THE According to the petitioners, this rule is applicable to the case at
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE bench pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4 of the Rules of Court which
COMPLAINT AND FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER, WHERE THE reads:
RESPONDENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS DID NOT
FILE ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE FORMAL CHARGES SECTION 4. In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not
AGAINST THEM. apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization
and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided
II for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (underscoring supplied)
WHETHER THE RULE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL SENSE The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the petitioners.
AUTHORIZES AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER IN Petitioners' own rules, Rule XI, Section 4 of the GSIS' Amended
EVIDENCE AND GIVE FULL PROBATIVE VALUE TO UNNOTARIZED Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 178-04, specifically
LETTERS THAT DID NOT FORM PART OF THE CASE RECORD. provides:

III If the respondent fails to file his Answer within five (5) working
days from receipt of the Formal Charge for the supporting
WHETHER A DECISION THAT MAKES CONCLUSIONS OF FACTS evidence, when requested, he shall be considered to have waived
BASED ON EVIDENCE ON RECORD BUT MAKES A CONCLUSION OF his right to file an answer and the PGM or the Board of Trustees,
LAW BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF A DOCUMENT THAT NEVER in proper cases, shall render judgment, as may be warranted by
FORMED PART OF THE CASE RECORDS IS VALID. the facts and evidence submitted by the prosecution.

IV A perusal of said section readily discloses that the failure of a

respondent to file an answer merely translates to a waiver of "his
right to file an answer." There is nothing in the rule that says that
WHETHER FURTHER PROOF OF SUSBTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE
the charges are deemed admitted. It has not done away with the
OPERATIONAL CAPACITY OF AN AGENCY, DUE TO UNRULY MASS
burden of the complainant to prove the charges with clear and
GATHERING OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSIDE OFFICE
convincing evidence.
PREMISES AND WITHIN OFFICE HOURS, IS REQUIRED TO HOLD
THE SAID EMPLOYEES LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE PURSUANT TO CSC RESOLUTION It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that the
NO. 021316. rules can be applied in a "suppletory character." Suppletory is
defined as "supplying deficiencies."10 It means that the provisions
in the Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an
V
insufficiency in the applicable rule. There is, however, no such
deficiency as the rules of the GSIS are explicit in case of failure to
WHETHER AN UNRULY MASS GATHERING OF TWENTY file the required answer. What is clearly stated there is that GSIS
EMPLOYEES, LASTING FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR DURING may "render judgment as may be warranted by the facts and
OFFICE HOURS, INSIDE OFFICE PREMISES AND WITHIN A UNIT evidence submitted by the prosecution."
TASKED TO HEAR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE, TO PROTEST THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR LEADER AS
Even granting that Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court finds
COUNSEL IN THE SAID ADMINISTRATIVE CASE, FALLS WITHIN THE
application in this case, petitioners must remember that there
PURVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE TO FREEDOM
remain averments that are not deemed admitted by the failure to
OF EXPRESSION AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY.
deny the same. Among them are immaterial allegations and
incorrect conclusions drawn from facts set out in the
VI complaint.11 Thus, even if respondents failed to file their answer,
2 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
it does not mean that all averments found in the complaint will government service of their constitutional right to freedom of
be considered as true and correct in their entirety, and that the expression.
forthcoming decision will be rendered in favor of the petitioners.
We must not forget that even in administrative proceedings, it is Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right
still the complainant, or in this case the petitioners, who have the as any person in the land to voice out their protests against what
burden of proving, with substantial evidence, the allegations in they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests. Civil
the complaint or in the formal charges.12 Service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression. It
would be unfair to hold that by joining the government service,
A perusal of the decisions of the CA and of the CSC will reveal that the members thereof have renounced or waived this basic liberty.
the case was resolved against petitioners based, not on the This freedom can be reasonably regulated only but can never be
absence of respondents' evidence, but on the weakness of that taken away.
of the petitioners. Thus, the CA wrote:
A review of PGM Garcia's formal charges against the respondents
Petitioners correctly submitted the administrative cases for reveals that he himself was not even certain whether the
resolution without the respondents' respective answer to the respondents and the rest of the twenty or so GSIS employees who
separate formal charges in accordance with Section 4, Rule XI of were at the GSIS-IU office that fateful day marched there or just
the RPAI. Being in full control of the administrative proceeding simply appeared there simultaneously.14 Thus, the petitioners
and having effectively prevented respondents from further were not even sure if the spontaneous act of each of the twenty
submitting their responsive answer and evidence for the defense, or so GSIS employees on May 27, 2005 was a concerted one. The
petitioners were in the most advantageous position to prove the report of Manager Nagtalon of the GSIS-SD which was the basis
merit of their allegations in the formal charges. When petitioner for PGM Garcia's formal charges reflected such uncertainty. Thus,
Winston Garcia issued those similarly worded decisions in the
administrative cases against the respondents, it is presumed that Of these red shirt protesters, only Mr. Molina has official business
all evidence in their favor were duly submitted and justly at the Investigation Unit during this time. The rest abandoned
considered independent of the weakness of respondent's their post and duties for the duration of this incident which lasted
evidence in view of the principle that ''the burden of proof until 10:55 A.M. It was also observed that the protesters, some of
belongs to the one who alleges and not the one who denies."13 whom raised their clenched left fists, carefully planned this illegal
action as evident in their behavior of arrogance, defiance and
On the merits, what needs to be resolved in the case at bench is provocation, the presence of various recording gadgets such as
the question of whether or not there was a violation of Section 5 VCRs, voice recorders and digital cameras, the bad mouthing of
of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316. Stated differently, whether or not the security guards and the PGM, the uniformity in their attire
respondents' actions on May 27, 2005 amounted to a "prohibited and the collusion regarding the anomalous entry of Mr. Albert
concerted activity or mass action." Pertinently, the said provision Velasco to the premises as reported earlier.15
states:
The said report of Nagtalon contained only bare facts. It did not
Section 5. As used in this Omnibus Rules, the phrase ''prohibited show respondents' unified intent to effect disruption or stoppage
concerted activity or mass action'' shall be understood to refer to in their work. It also failed to show that their purpose was to
any collective activity undertaken by government employees, by demand a force concession.
themselves or through their employees organizations, with intent
of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in order to In the recent case of GSIS v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa
realize their demands of force concession, economic or GSIS,16 the Court upheld the position of petitioner GSIS because
otherwise, from their respective agencies or the government. It its employees, numbering between 300 and 800 each day, staged
shall include mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar a walkout and participated in a mass protest or demonstration
nature. (underscoring supplied) outside the GSIS for four straight days. We cannot say the same
for the 20 or so employees in this case. To equate their wearing
In this case, CSC found that the acts of respondents in going to of red shirts and going to the GSIS-IU office for just over an hour
the GSIS-IU office wearing red shirts to witness a public hearing with that four-day mass action in Kapisanan ng mga
do not amount to a concerted activity or mass action proscribed Manggagawa sa GSIS case and to punish them in the same
above. CSC even added that their actuations can be deemed an manner would most certainly be unfair and unjust.
exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.
The CA found no cogent reason to deviate therefrom. Recent analogous decisions in the United States, while
recognizing the government's right as an employer to lay down
As defined in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 which certain standards of conduct, tend to lean towards a broad
serves to regulate the political rights of those in the government definition of "public concern speech" which is protected by their
service, the concerted activity or mass action proscribed must be First Amendment. One such case is that of Scott v. Meters.17 In
coupled with the "intent of effecting work stoppage or service said case, the New York Transit Authority (NYTA), responsible for
disruption in order to realize their demands of force concession." operation of New York City's mass transit service, issued a rule
Wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing at the prohibiting employees from wearing badges or buttons on their
GSIS-IU office, bringing with them recording gadgets, clenching uniforms. A number of union members wore union buttons
their fists, some even badmouthing the guards and PGM Garcia, promoting their opposition to a collective bargaining agreement.
are acts not constitutive of an (i) intent to effect work stoppage Consequently, the NYTA tried to enforce its rule and threatened
or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of realizing their to subject these union members to discipline. The court, though
demands of force concession. recognizing the government's right to impose reasonable
restrictions, held that the NYTA's rule was "unconstitutionally
Precisely, the limitations or qualifications found in Section 5 of overboard."
CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 are there to temper and focus the
application of such prohibition. Not all collective activity or mass In another case, Communication Workers of America v. Ector
undertaking of government employees is prohibited. Otherwise, County Hospital District,18 it was held that,
we would be totally depriving our brothers and sisters in the
3 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
A county hospital employee's wearing of a "Union Yes" lapel pin
during a union organization drive constituted speech on a matter
of public concern, and the county's proffered interest in enforcing
the anti-adornment provision of its dress code was outweighed
by the employee's interest in exercising his First Amendment
speech and associational rights by wearing a pro-union lapel
button.19

Thus, respondents' freedom of speech and of expression remains

intact, and CSC's Resolution No. 02-1316 defining what a
prohibited concerted activity or mass action has only tempered
or regulated these rights. Measured against that definition,
respondents' actuations did not amount to a prohibited
concerted activity or mass action. The CSC and the CA were both
correct in arriving at said conclusion.

WHEREFORE, the assailed August 31, 2007 Decision of the Court

of Appeals as well as its October 16, 2007 Resolution in CA G.R.
SP No. 98952 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

4 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

G.R. No. 204894 March 10, 2014 conducted an entrapment operation that resulted in the arrest of
accused Santos and Jalandoni. Subsequently, the police were also
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, able to capture accused Enojas and Gomez. The prosecution
vs. presented the transcripts of the mobile phone text messages
NOEL ENOJAS y HINGPIT, ARNOLD GOMEZ y FABREGAS, between Enojas and some of his co-accused.5
FERNANDO SANTOS y DELANTAR, and ROGER JALANDONI y
ARI, Appellants. The victim’s father, Ricardo Pangilinan, testified that his son was
at the time of his death 28 years old, unmarried, and was
DECISION receiving police pay of ₱8,000.00 to ₱10,000.00 per month.
Ricardo spent ₱99,999 for burial expense, ₱16,000.00 for the
interment services, and ₱50,000.00 for purchase of the cemetery
ABAD, J.:
lot.6

On September 4, 2006 the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas charged

Manifesting in open court that they did not want to adduce any
appellants Noel Enojas y Hingpit (Enojas), Arnold Gomez y
evidence or testify in the case,7 the accused opted to instead file
Fabregas (Gomez), Fernando Santos y Delantar (Santos), and
a trial memorandum on March 10, 2008 for their defense. They
Roger Jalandoni y Ari (Jalandoni) with murder before the Las Pifias
pointed out that they were entitled to an acquittal since they
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case 06-0854.1
were all illegally arrested and since the evidence of the text
messages were inadmissible, not having been properly identified.
PO2 Eduardo Gregorio, Jr. (P02 Gregorio) testified that at around
10:30 in the evening of August 29, 2006, he and P02 Francisco
On June 2, 2008 the RTC rendered judgment,8 finding all the
Pangilinan (PO2 Pangilinan) were patrolling the vicinity of Toyota
accused guilty of murder qualified by evident premeditation and
Alabang and SM Southmall when they spotted a taxi that was
use of armed men with the special aggravating circumstance of
suspiciously parked in front of the Aguila Auto Glass shop near the
use of unlicensed firearms. It thus sentenced them to suffer the
intersection of BF Almanza and Alabang-Zapote Roads. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole
officers approached the taxi and asked the driver, later identified
and to indemnify the heirs of PO2 Pangilinan with ₱165,999.00 as
as accused Enojas, for his documents. The latter complied but,
actual damages, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as
having entertained doubts regarding the veracity of documents
exemplary damages, and ₱2,080,000.00 as compensation for loss
shown them, they asked him to come with them to the police
of earning capacity.
station in their mobile car for further questioning.2

Upon review in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 03377, on June 14, 2012 the

Accused Enojas voluntarily went with the police officers and left
Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto
his taxi behind. On reaching the 7-11 convenience store on the
the conviction of the accused.9 The CA, however, found the
Zapote-Alabang Road, however, they stopped and PO2 Pangilinan
absence of evident premeditation since the prosecution failed to
went down to relieve himself there. As he approached the store’s
prove that the several accused planned the crime before
door, however, he came upon two suspected robbers and shot it
committing it. The accused appealed from the CA to this Court.10
out with them. PO2 Pangilinan shot one suspect dead and hit the
other who still managed to escape. But someone fired at PO2
Pangilinan causing his death. The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present
direct evidence that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or
Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead.11 This may
On hearing the shots, PO2 Gregorio came around and fired at an
be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by
armed man whom he saw running towards Pilar Village. He saw
circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of
another man, who came from the Jollibbee outlet, run towards
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that
Alabang-Zapote Road while firing his gun at PO2 Gregorio. The
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is
latter returned fire but the men were able to take a taxi and
more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the
escape. PO2 Gregorio radioed for help and for an ambulance. On
inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all
returning to his mobile car, he realized that accused Enojas, the
the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
taxi driver they had with them had fled.
reasonable doubt.12

P/Insp. Ferjen Torred (Torred), the Chief of Investigation Division

Here the totality of the circumstantial evidence the prosecution
of the Las Piñas Police, testified that he and PO2 Teoson Rosarito
presented sufficiently provides basis for the conviction of all the
(PO2 Rosarito) immediately responded to PO2 Gregorio’s urgent
accused. Thus:
call. Suspecting that accused Enojas, the taxi driver who fled, was
involved in the attempted robbery, they searched the abandoned
taxi and found a mobile phone that Enojas apparently left behind. 1. PO2 Gregorio positively identified accused Enojas as
P/Ins. Torred instructed PO3 Joel Cambi (PO3 Cambi) to monitor the driver of the taxicab suspiciously parked in front of
its incoming messages.3 the Aguila Auto Glass shop. The officers were bringing
him with them to the police station because of the
questionable documents he showed upon query.
The police later ascertained that the suspect whom PO2
Subsequent inspection of the taxicab yielded Enojas’
Pangilinan had killed was someone named Reynaldo Mendoza
mobile phone that contained messages which led to
who was armed with a .38 caliber revolver. The police found
the entrapment and capture of the other accused who
spent 9 mm and M-16 rifle shells at the crime scene. Follow-up
were also taxicab drivers.
operations at nearby provinces resulted in finding the dead body
of one of the suspects, Alex Angeles, at the Metro South Medical
Center along Molino, Bacoor, Cavite.4 2. Enojas fled during the commotion rather than remain
in the cab to go to the police station where he was
about to be taken for questioning, tending to show that
PO3 Cambi and PO2 Rosarito testified that they monitored the
he had something to hide. He certainly did not go to the
messages in accused Enojas’ mobile phone and, posing as Enojas,
police afterwards to clear up the matter and claim his
communicated with the other accused. The police then
taxi.
5 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
 3. PO2 Gregorio positively identified accused Gomez as identities of the accused. Indeed, the police caught them in an
one of the men he saw running away from the scene of entrapment using this knowledge.
the shooting.
The award of damages by the courts below has to be modified to
4. The text messages identified "Kua Justin" as one of conform to current jurisprudence.18
those who engaged PO2 Pangilinan in the shootout; the
messages also referred to "Kua Justin" as the one who WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the Court of Appeals Decision
was hit in such shootout and later died in a hospital in of June 14, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03377. The Court instead FINDS
Bacoor, Cavite. These messages linked the other accused-appellants Noel Enojas y Hingpit, Arnold Gomez y
accused. Fabregas, Fernando Santos y Delantar, and Roger Jalandoni y Ari
GUILTY of the lesser crime of HOMICIDE with the special
5. During the follow-up operations, the police aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. Applying
investigators succeeded in entrapping accused Santos, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court SENTENCES each of
Jalandoni, Enojas, and Gomez, who were all named in them to 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
the text messages. reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court also MODIFIES the
award of exemplary damages by increasing it to ₱30,000.00, with
6. The text messages sent to the phone recovered from an additional ₱50,000.00 for civil indemnity.
the taxi driven by Enojas clearly made references to the
7-11 shootout and to the wounding of "Kua Justin," one SO ORDERED.
of the gunmen, and his subsequent death.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
7. The context of the messages showed that the Associate Justice
accused were members of an organized group of
taxicab drivers engaged in illegal activities.

8. Upon the arrest of the accused, they were found in

possession of mobile phones with call numbers that
corresponded to the senders of the messages received
on the mobile phone that accused Enojas left in his
taxicab.13

The Court must, however, disagree with the CA’s ruling that the
aggravating circumstances of a) aid of armed men and b) use of
unlicensed firearms qualified the killing of PO2 Pangilinan to
murder. In "aid of armed men," the men act as accomplices only.
They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the
same purpose as the principal accused, otherwise they are to be
regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators. The use of
unlicensed firearm, on the other hand, is a special aggravating
circumstance that is not among the circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as qualifying a homicide to
murder.14 Consequently, the accused in this case may be held
liable only for homicide, aggravated by the use of unlicensed
firearms, a circumstance alleged in the information.

As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted

them in conformity with the Court’s earlier Resolution applying
the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions.15 Text
messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was
a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them.16 Here,
PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text
messages with the other accused in order to identify and entrap
them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the
mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal
knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on
them.

The accused lament that they were arrested without a valid

warrant of arrest.1âwphi1 But, assuming that this was so, it
cannot be a ground for acquitting them of the crime charged but
for rejecting any evidence that may have been taken from them
after an unauthorized search as an incident of an unlawful arrest,
a point that is not in issue here. At any rate, a crime had been
committed—the killing of PO2 Pangilinan—and the investigating
police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
persons they were to arrest had committed it.17 The text
messages to and from the mobile phone left at the scene by
accused Enojas provided strong leads on the participation and

6 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016 Jose was furious when he learned of the sale and went back to
the Philippines. Jose and Bonifacio verified with the Register of
TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent. Deeds and discovered that the title covering the disputed
property had been transferred to
Tomas.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
DECISION
Bonifacio further testified that Jose's signature in the SPA was
BRION, J.: forged.21 Bonifacio presented documents containing the
signature of Jose for comparison: Philippine passport, complaint-
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 challenging the affidavit, duplicate original of SPA dated 16 February 2002, notice
August 28, 2009 decision2 and November 17, 2009 resolution3 of of lis pendens, community tax certificate, voter's affidavit,
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. specimen signatures, and a handwritten
88645.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary letter.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Facts On the other hand, Tomas submitted his own account of events
as corroborated by Rosana Robles (Rosana), his goddaughter.
The respondent Jose G. Hosana (Jose) married Milagros C. Hosana Sometime in December 1997, Tomas directed Rosana to go to the
(Milagros) on January 14, 1979.4 During their marriage, Jose and house of Milagros to confirm if Jose knew about the sale
Milagros bought a house and lot located at Tinago, Naga City, transaction. Through a phone call by Milagros to Jose, Rosana was
which lot was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. able to talk to Jose who confirmed that he was aware of the sale
21229.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary and had given his wife authority to proceed with the sale. Rosana
informed Tomas of Jose's
On January 13, 1998, Milagros sold to the petitioner Tomas P. confirmation.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Tan, Jr. (Tomas) the subject property, as evidenced by a deed of
sale executed by Milagros herself and as attorney-in-fact of Jose, With the assurance that all the documents were in order, Tomas
by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Jose in made a partial payment of P350,000.00 and another P350,000.00
her favor.6 The Deed of Sale stated that the purchase price for the upon the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Deed of Sale).
lot was P200,000.00.7 After the sale, TCT No. 21229 was cancelled Tomas noticed that the consideration written by Milagros on the
and TCT No. 32568 was issued in the name of Deed of Sale was only P200,000.00; he inquired why the written
Tomas.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary consideration was lower than the actual consideration paid.
Milagros explained that it was done to save on taxes. Tomas also
On October 19, 2001, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment of learned from Milagros that she needed money badly and had to
Sale/Cancellation of Title/Reconveyance and Damages against sell the house because Jose had stopped sending her
Milagros, Tomas, and the Register of Deeds of Naga City.9 The money.24chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
62, Naga City. In the complaint, Jose averred that while he was The RTC Ruling
working in Japan, Milagros, without his consent and knowledge,
conspired with Tomas to execute the SPA by forging Jose's In its decision dated December 27, 2006,25 the RTC decided in
signature making it appear that Jose had authorized Milagros to favor of Jose and nullified the sale of the subject property to
sell the subject property to Tomas.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Tomas. The RTC held that the SPA dated June 10, 1996, wherein
Jose supposedly appointed Milagros as his attorney-in-fact, was
In his Answer, Tomas maintained that he was a buyer in good faith actually null and void.
and for value.11 Before he paid the full consideration of the sale,
Tomas claimed he sought advice from his lawyer-friend who told Tomas and Milagros were ordered to jointly and severally
him that the title of the subject lot was authentic and in indemnify Jose the amount of P20,000.00 as temperate
order.12 Furthermore, he alleged that the SPA authorizing damages.26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Milagros to sell the property was annotated at the back of the
title.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The CA Ruling

Tomas filed a cross-claim against Milagros and claimed Tomas appealed the RTC's ruling to the CA.
compensatory and moral damages, attorney's fees, and
expenses, for litigation, in the event that judgment be rendered In a decision dated August 28, 2009,27 the CA affirmed the RTC
in favor of Jose.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary ruling that the deed of sale and the SPA were void. However, the
CA modified the judgment of the RTC: first, by deleting the award
The RTC declared Milagros in default for her failure to file her of temperate damages; and second, by directing Jose and
answer to Jose's complaint and Tomas' cross-claim.15 On the Milagros to reimburse Tomas the purchase price of P200,000.00,
other hand, it dismissed Tomas' complaint against the Register of with interest, under the principle of unjust enrichment. Despite
Deeds since it was only a nominal Tomas' allegation that he paid P700,000.00 for the subject lot, the
party.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary CA found that there was no convincing evidence that established
this claim.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits
ensued.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Tomas filed a motion for the reconsideration of the CA decision
on the ground that the amount of P200,000.00 as reimbursement
Jose presented his brother, Bonifacio Hosana (Bonifacio), as sole for the purchase price of the house and lot was insufficient and
witness. Bonifacio testified that he learned of the sale of the not supported by the evidence formally offered before and
subject property from Milagros' son.18 When Bonifacio admitted by the RTC. Tomas contended that the actual amount
confronted Milagros that Jose would get angry because of the he paid as consideration for the sale was P700,000.00, as
sale, Milagros retorted that she sold the property because she supported by his testimony before the
needed the money. Bonifacio immediately informed Jose, who RTC.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
was then in Japan, of the sale.19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The C A denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit"
7 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
in a resolution dated November 17, We uphold the CA's finding.
2009.30chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations
The Petition has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of
evidence.40 Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of
Tomas filed the present petition for review on certiorari to their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense
challenge the CA ruling which ordered the reimbursement of offered by their opponent.41chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
P200,000.00 only, instead of the actual purchase price he paid in
the amount of P700,000.00.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the
aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
Tomas argues that, first, all matters contained in the deed of sale, synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or
including the consideration stated, cannot be used as evidence "greater weight of the credible evidence."42 Preponderance of
since it was declared null and void; second, the deed of sale was evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability
not specifically offered to prove the actual consideration of the of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as
sale;32third, his testimony establishing the actual purchase price it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition
of P700,000.00 paid was uncontroverted;33 and, fourth, Jose thereto.43chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
must return the full amount actually paid under the principle
of solutio indebiti.34chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary We agree with the CA that Tomas' bare allegation that he paid
Milagros the sum of P700,000.00 cannot be considered as proof
Jose, on the other hand, argues that first, Jose is estopped from of payment, without any other convincing evidence to establish
questioning the purchase price indicated in the deed of dale for this claim. Tomas' bare allegation, while uncontroverted, does
failing to immediately raise this question; and second, the terms not automatically entitle it to be given weight and credence.
of an agreement reduced into writing are deemed to include all
the terms agreed upon and no other evidence can be admitted It is settled in jurisprudence that one who pleads payment has the
other than the terms of the agreement burden of proving it;44 the burden rests on the defendant to
itself.35chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-
payment.45 A mere allegation is not evidence,46 and the person
The Issues who alleges has the burden of proving his or her allegation with
the requisite quantum of evidence, which in civil cases is
The core issues are (1) whether the deed of sale can be used as preponderance of evidence.
the basis for the amount of consideration paid; and (2) whether
the testimony of Tomas is sufficient to establish the actual The force and effect of a void contract is distinguished from its
purchase price of the sale.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary admissibility as evidence.

OUR RULING The next question to be resolved is whether the CA correctly

ordered the reimbursement of P200,000.00, which is the
We affirm the CA ruling and deny the petition. consideration stated in the Deed of Sale, based on the principle
of unjust enrichment.
Whether Tomas paid the purchase price of P700,000.00 is a
question of fact not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in relying on the
Appreciation of evidence and inquiry on the correctness of the consideration stated in the deed of sale as basis for the
appellate court's factual findings are not the functions of this reimbursable amount because a null and void document cannot
Court, as we are not a trier of facts.36chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary be used as evidence.

This Court does not address questions of fact which require us to We find no merit in the petitioner's argument.
rule on "the truth or falsehood of alleged facts,"37 except in the
following cases:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary A void or inexistent contract has no force and effect from the very
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, beginning.47 This rule applies to contracts that are declared void
surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is by positive provision of law, as in the case of a sale of conjugal
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a property without the other spouse's written consent.48 A void
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on contract is equivalent to nothing and is absolutely wanting in civil
misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are effects.49 It cannot be validated either by ratification or
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary prescription.50 When, however, any of the terms of a void
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the contract have been performed, an action to declare its
findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the inexistence is necessary to allow restitution of what has been
findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on given under it.51chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not It is basic that if a void contract has already "been performed, the
disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact restoration of what has been given is in order."52 This principle
are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and springs from Article 22 of the New Civil Code which states that
contradicted by the evidence on "every person who through an act of performance by another, or
record.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something
at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall
The present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. return the same." Hence, the restitution of what each party has
given is a consequence of a void and inexistent contract.
Whether Tomas sufficiently proved that he paid P700,000.00 for
the subject property is a factual question that the CA had already While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be
resolved in the negative.39 The CA found Tomas' claim of paying enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not preclude the
P700,000.00 for the subject property to be unsubstantiated as he admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that
failed to tender any convincing evidence to establish his claim. occurred in the course of executing the contract, i.e., what each
party has given in the execution of the contract.
8 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
Evidence is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the Hence, the specific offer of the Deed of Sale to prove the actual
truth respecting a matter of fact, sanctioned by the Rules of consideration of the sale is not necessary since it is necessarily
Court.53 The purpose of introducing documentary evidence is to included in determining the regular execution of the sale.
ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue, which can be the
entire content or a specific provision/term in the document. The consideration stated in the notarized Deed of Sale is prima
facie evidence of the amount paid by the petitioner.
The deed of sale as documentary evidence may be used as a
means to ascertain the truthfulness of the consideration stated The notarized deed of sale is a public document and is prima
and its actual payment. The purpose of introducing the deed of facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated
sale as evidence is not to enforce the terms written in the therein.60chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
contract, which is an obligatory force and effect of a valid
contract. The deed of sale, rather, is used as a means to Prima facie evidence is defined as evidence good and sufficient
determine matters that occurred in the execution of such on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is
contract, i.e., the determination of what each party has given sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts
under the void contract to allow restitution and prevent unjust constituting the party's claim or defense and which if not
enrichment. rebutted or contradicted, will remain
sufficient.61chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law of these rules.54 There is no provision in the In the present case, the consideration stated in the deed of sale
Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void constitutes prima facie evidence of the amount paid by Tomas for
document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant the transfer of the property to his name. Tomas failed to adduce
and not excluded by the Rules for its satisfactory evidence to rebut or contradict the consideration
admissibility.55chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary stated as the actual consideration and amount paid to Milagros
and Jose.
Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence because the
purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth The deed of sale was declared null and void by a positive provision
respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the of law requiring the consent of both spouses for the sale of
document itself. conjugal property. There is, however, no question on the
presence of the consideration of the sale, except with respect to
It is also settled in jurisprudence that with respect to evidence the actual amount paid. While the deed of sale has no force and
which appears to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or effect as a contract, it remains prima facie evidence of the actual
admissibility, the safer policy is to be liberal and not reject them consideration paid.
on doubtful or technical grounds, but admit them unless plainly
irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent; for the reason that their As earlier discussed, Tomas failed to substantiate his claim that
rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if he paid to Milagros the amount of P700,000.00, instead of the
they are thereafter found relevant or competent. On the other amount of P200,000.00 stated in the deed of sale. No
hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or documentary or testimonial evidence to prove payment of the
incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding higher amount was presented, apart from Tomas' sole testimony.
them or ignoring them.56chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Tomas' sole testimony of payment is self-serving and insufficient
to unequivocally prove that Milagros received P700,000.00 for
In the present case, the deed of sale was declared null and void the subject property.
by positive provision of the law prohibiting the sale of conjugal
property without the spouse's consent. It does not, however, Hence, the consideration stated in the deed of sale remains
preclude the possibility that Tomas paid the consideration stated sufficient evidence of the actual amount the petitioner paid and
therein. The admission of the deed of sale as evidence is the same amount which should be returned under the principle
consistent with the liberal policy of the court to admit the of unjust enrichment.
evidence: which appears to be relevant in resolving an issue
before the courts. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a
benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains money or
An offer to prove the regular execution of the deed of sale is basis property of another against the fundamental principles of justice,
for the court to determine the presence of the essential elements of equity, and good conscience."62 The prevention of unjust
the sale, including the consideration paid. enrichment is a recognized public policy of the State and is based
on Article 22 of the Civil Code.63chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Tomas argues that the Deed of Sale was not specifically offered
to prove the actual consideration of the sale and, hence, cannot The principle of unjust enrichment requires Jose to return what
be considered by the court. Tomas is incorrect. he or Milagros received under the void contract which
presumably benefitted their conjugal partnership.
The deed of sale in the present case was formally offered by both
parties as evidence.57 Tomas, in fact, formally offered it for the Accordingly, the CA correctly ordered Jose to return the amount
purpose of proving its execution and the regularity of the of P200,000.00 since this the consideration stated in the Deed of
sale.58chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sale and given credence by the lower court. Indeed, even Jose
expressly stated in his comment that Tomas is entitled to recover
The offer of the deed of sale to prove its regularity necessarily the money paid by him in the amount of P200,000.00 as
allowed the; lower courts to consider the terms written therein appearing in the contract.
to determine whether all the essential elements59 for a valid
contract of sale are present, including the consideration of the WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for review
sale. The fact that the sale was declared null and void does not on certiorari. The decision dated August 28, 2009 and the
prevent the court from relying on consideration stated in the resolution dated November 17, 2009, of the Court of Appeals in
deed of sale to determine the actual amount paid by the CA-G.R. CV No. 88645 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
petitioner for the purpose of preventing unjust enrichment.
9 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

10 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018 ng bahay." Another witness stated hearing the following
utterances from Evelyn: "Kuya, wag mo akong iwan papatayin
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK JOHN ako ng pamangkin ko," referring to appellant, and "ilayo nyo sa
MERCADO Y ANTICLA, Accused-Appellant. akin si Patrick [Mercado] dahil yan ang papatay sa amin." Still,
another witness claimed to have heard Evelyn say: "Ilayo nyo sa
akin yan batang yan. Yan ang papatay sa akin. Yan ang sumunog
DECISION
sa amin. Yan ang pumalo sa ulo namin."

CAGUIOA, J.:
While on board the ambulance on the way to the hospital, Evelyn
repeated the name of appellant as the culprit who caused their
Before this Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by the accused- injuries and burned the house. Thus, she uttered: "Te, si
appellant Patrick John Mercado y Anticla (Mercado) assailing the Patrick [Mercado] ang may gawa," "Si Patrick [Mercado] sinunog
Decision2 dated June 20, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- kami," and "Si Patrick ang pumalo sa akin. Si
G.R. CR-HC No. 05604, which affirmed the Decision3 dated Patrick [Mercado] ang sumunog sa amin, pati sa bahay."
February 24, 2012 of Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Third
Judicial Region, Branch 78 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 3222-M-
Despite medical attention, Evelyn succumbed to her injuries and
2007, finding Mercado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
died on November 2, 2007 at the UST Hospital. Based on the
crime of Double Murder.
declarations of Evelyn, appellant was charged for the killing of
Evelyn and Alicia.6
The Facts
On the other hand, the version of the defense, as summarized in
An Information was filed against Mercado for the murders of his the Appellant's Brief,7 is as follows:
aunt Alicia Mercado-Lusuriaga (Alicia) and her live-in partner,
Evelyn Santos (Evelyn), the accusatory portion of which reads:
Patrick John Mercado, vehemently denied the charge against him.

"That on or about the 15th day of October, 2007, in the

He averred that on October 15, 2007, he was inside his room at
municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
the first floor reviewing for his quarterly final examination and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
preparing his school project when a fire broke out between 2:00
accused, armed with a baseball bat and with intent to kill Alicia
to [2:30] o' clock early morning of the said date. He heard that the
Mercado-Lusuriaga and Evelyn Santos, live-in partners, with
door on the terrace (second floor) was opened by someone and
evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength,
he thought that it was [either] his deceased Aunt Alice Mercado
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
or Evelyn Santos who usually collects the laundry hanging on the
assault, hit them with the said baseball bat and pour gasoline into
terrace very early in the morning. Afterwards, he heard some
their bodies and light them thereby causing upon them third
noises and a commotion ensued that prompted him to rush
degree burns which directly caused their instantaneous death
upstairs where a fire had suddenly ignited and he saw a man
and the burning of [the] victim's house.
coming out from the terrace. He went down and summoned for
help from two (2) women. When he rushed back to render
Contrary to law."4 assistance, he saw Evelyn about to jump from the terrace. Thus,
he pulled her back while he continued shouting for help. A ladder
The version of the prosecution, as summarized in its Appellee's was [then] provided by the neighbors. He then positioned himself
Brief,5 is as follows: at the ladder while he was assisting Evelyn in going down. Evelyn
was boarded into a van en route to a hospital. He did not leave
The victims, Evelyn Santos ("Evelyn") and Alicia Mercado the place and stayed in a nearby house while watching their
("Alicia"), are partners who lived together in a house located at house being engulfed by fire. While watching, a person
Block 6 Lot 2, Belmont Pare Subdivision, Purok 4, Caypombo, Sta. approached and handcuffed him.
Maria, Bulacan. Appellant was the nephew of Alicia. He was
enrolled at the nearby STI College in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, and used On October 15, 2007, Dan Dacallos, a neighbor of Patrick John
to live in the same house. testified that, he was sleeping when he heard someone shouting
"sunog". He checked and saw a smoke coming out from the house
It appears that around 11:00 PM of October 14, 2007, appellant of Patrick John and also saw an unidentified bloodied man coming
was already inside the house, having come home from school. out. He then saw Patrick John throwing water on the burning
Records show that around 2:00 AM of October 15, 2007, the house while at the terrace. He did not report having seen the
house of Evelyn and Alicia was reported to be on fire. While the bloodied man to the authorities because of his minority and since
house was burning, Evelyn and appellant were observed on the his parents did not want him to get involved.8
terrace supposedly trying to find a way to escape the blaze.
Mercado was arraigned on November 22, 2007, in which he
Eventually, through the help of neighbors, Evelyn and appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged.9 Pre-trial and trial
were brought out of the burning house. Evelyn looked weak and thereafter ensued.
unable to walk as she was badly burnt. She also had blood oozing
out of the right side of her head. Ruling of the RTC

Witnesses declared that as soon as Evelyn was carried out to After trial on the merits, in its Decision dated February 24, 2012
safety, she promptly accused and pointed to appellant as the the RTC convicted Mercado of the crime of Double Murder. The
person responsible for attacking her and Alicia as well as for dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
setting the house on fire. Specifically, Evelyn claimed that
appellant hit her and [Alicia] with a baseball [bat] then set them WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds
on fire. One witness heard Evelyn say: "ilayo ninyo sa akin yang si accused Patrick John Mercado GUILTY of the crime of Double
Patrick [Mercado] dahil siya ang pumalo sa aking ulo at nagsunog Murder penalized under the provisions of Art. 248 of the Revised
11 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty as proved by the testimonies of the numerous prosecution
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of each of the witnesses, were more than sufficient to establish his guilt beyond
two victims: a. P 75,000.00 as civil indemnity for their death and reasonable doubt.15
b. P 50,000.00 as moral damages and c. P 30,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The CA, however, modified the penalty imposed on Mercado
from a single count of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC to
In the service of his sentence accused who is a detention prisoner two counts of reclusion perpetua for each of the murders he
shall be credited with the entire period he has undergone committed.
preventive imprisonment.
Hence, the instant appeal.
SO ORDERED.10
Issue
The RTC held that although the evidence of the prosecution relied
heavily on what appears to be hearsay evidence, the testimonies For resolution of this Court are the following issues submitted by
of the prosecution witnesses were still admissible because they Mercado:
were the dying declarations of Evelyn, and these were admissible
under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The RTC added
that assuming that the testimonies were inadmissible under the (1) Whether the CA erred in convicting Mercado despite the
rule on dying declaration, the same would nevertheless be prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond
admissible as it was part of the res gestae, allowed in evidence by reasonable doubt;
virtue of Rule 130, Section 42 of the Rules of Court.

(2) Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's

The RTC further held that the crime committed was Double
appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of use of fire;
Murder, as the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of the use of fire. The RTC ruled that the crime
committed was the complex crime of Double Murder – instead of (3) Whether the CA erred in not appreciating the mitigating
two counts of Murder – and sentenced him with the penalty circumstance of voluntary surrender.16
of reclusion perpetua.

Aggrieved, Mercado appealed to the CA. The Court's Ruling

Ruling of the CA The appeal is unmeritorious. The Court, however, modifies the
penalty imposed on Mercado to a single penalty of reclusion
perpetua only.
In the assailed Decision dated June 20, 2014, the CA affirmed the
RTC's finding that Mercado was the perpetrator of the crime.
First Issue: On whether the prosecution proved Mercado's guilt
The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling that the evidence of the beyond reasonable doubt
prosecution were admissible under the rule on dying declaration
or, in any case, under the rule on res gestae.11 Further, the CA
ruled that Mercado's defense of denial – anchored on the In questioning his conviction, Mercado harps on his defense of
testimony of Dan Dacallos (Dacallos) that there was a bloodied denial, and the supposed weakness of the evidence of the
man who came out of the house while it was on fire – could not prosecution. He argues that the testimony of Dacallos that there
overcome the probative value of the dying declaration of was a bloodied man who came out of the house as it was on fire
Evelyn.12 should be believed over the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses as to Evelyn's dying declarations. He likewise reiterates
his plea that the prosecution's failure to present the baseball bat
As Mercado put in issue the fact that the RTC did not consider in
and to prove the presence of gasoline amounts to reasonable
his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the
doubt that requires his acquittal.
CA ruled that the RTC was correct in doing so. The CA ratiocinated
that Mercado failed to show that there was a voluntary and
conscious effort on his end to surrender.13 The arguments fail to convince.

Mercado also questioned the RTC's appreciation of the qualifying With regard to this issue, the Court quotes with approval the
circumstance of use of fire in raising the offense to Murder. He following disquisitions by the CA:
argued that the same was not alleged in the Information, and that
only the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, Accused-appellant desperately tried to anchor his defense on
and evident premeditation were raised therein. To this, however, denial but failed to prove the same despite the presentation of an
the CA held that the RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying alleged eyewitness, Dan Emmanuel Dacallos. His testimony failed
circumstance of the use of fire as it was sufficiently alleged in the to overcome the credibility and probative value of the dying
Information.14 declarations and/or part of the res gestae of Evelyn Santos which
were recounted by several witnesses.
Finally, Mercado questioned his conviction as the prosecution
supposedly failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial is the weakest of
averred that the prosecution's failure to present the baseball bat all defenses. It easily crumbles in the face of positive identification
he supposedly used, or prove the presence of gasoline used to set of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. A denial, like other
the fire, amounted to reasonable doubt that necessitated his defenses, remains subject to the strength of the prosecution
acquittal. As regards this issue, the CA held that the evidence which is independently assessed. When the evidence for
aforementioned pieces of evidence were unnecessary or the prosecution convincingly connects the crime and the culprit,
immaterial to his conviction, as the dying declarations of Evelyn, the probative value of the denial is negligible.
12 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
xxxx be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death
and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders
The failure of the prosecution to present the baseball bat the dying declaration admissible. It is not necessary that the
allegedly used and to prove the presence of the gasoline is of no approaching death be presaged by the personal feelings of the
moment. The evidence presented and the testimonies of the deceased. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all
prosecution's witnesses were more than sufficient to establish hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly
accused-appellant's guilt for the crime charged. These testimonies impending. Third, the declarant is competent as a witness. The
specifically recounted the dying declarations/part of the res rule is that where the declarant would not have been a
gestae of Evelyn Santos which prove that accused-appellant hit competent witness had he survived, the proffered declarations
the victims with a baseball bat before placing them and the house will not be admissible. Thus, in the absence of evidence showing
on fire. Furthermore, the failure to present the baseball bat that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness
actually did not, in any way affect[,] the strength of the had he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he
prosecution's evidence.17 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) would have been competent. Fourth, the declaration must be
offered in a criminal case for homicide; murder, or parricide, in
which the declarant is the victim.21
In this connection, both the RTC and CA correctly held that the
evidence of the prosecution – as independently assessed –
sufficiently established the guilt of Mercado. The first and fourth requisites are undoubtedly present in this
case. With regard to the third requisite, since there was no
evidence presented to show that Evelyn could not have been
As an exception to the hearsay rule, a dying declaration is
competent to be a witness had she survived, the presumption
admissible as evidence because it is "evidence of the highest
that she would have been competent would be sustained in
order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware
accordance with the foregoing rule discussed in Umapas. The
of his impending death would make a careless and false
Court holds, therefore, that the third requisite is sufficiently met.
accusation."18 Accordingly, Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court provides:
With regard to the second requisite, the Court
in Umapas considered the severity of the declarant's wounds to
SEC. 37. Dying declaration.—The declaration of a dying person,
reasonably presume that she uttered her words under the belief
made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be
that her own death was already imminent. The Court therein held
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
that "[t]here is ample authority for the view that the declarant's
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
belief in the imminence of her death can be shown by the
death.
declarant's own statements or from circumstantial
evidence, such as the nature of her wounds, statements made in
For a "dying declaration" to be admissible m court, the following her presence, or by the opinion of her physician."22 Dealing with
requisites must concur: a declarant that was similarly severely burnt in a fire, the Court
reasoned:

(a) That the declaration must concern the cause and

surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; x x x. While more than 12 hours has lapsed from the time of the
incident until her declaration, it must be noted that Gemma was
in severe pain during the early hours of her admission. Dr. Tamayo
even testified that when she saw Gemma in the hospital, she was
(b) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant restless, in pain and incoherent considering that not only was she
was under a consciousness of an impending death; mauled, but 57% of her body was also burned. She also underwent
operation and treatment, and was under medication during the
said period. Given the circumstances Gemma was in, even if there
was sufficient lapse of time, we could only conclude that at the
(c) That the declarant is competent as a witness; and time of her declaration, she feared that her death was already
imminent. While suffering in pain due to thermal burns, she could
not have used said time to contrive her identification of Umapas as
(d) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for her assailant. There was, thus, no opportunity for Gemma to
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.23 (Emphasis and
the victim.19 underscoring supplied)

In the present case, Evelyn made the declarations just as she was
The Court, in People v. Umapas,20 explained and expounded on pulled out of the fire, with blood coming out of her forehead,
how each of the four requisites is to be understood. Thus: when she was having difficulty breathing, and with second and
third degree burns affecting 74% of the total surface area of her
Four requisites must concur in order that a dying declaration may body.24 Considering the foregoing facts – along with the principle
be admissible, thus: First, the declaration must concern the cause enunciated in Umapas that the declarant's belief in the
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. This imminence of her death can be shown by the nature and severity
refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to matters of the declarant's wounds – then the Court is convinced that the
both before and after the assault having a direct causal second requisite for a dying declaration is sufficiently met.
connection with it. Statements involving the nature of the
declarant's injury or the cause of death; those imparting Without doubt, therefore, the dying declarations of Evelyn to
deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or numerous witnesses that it was Mercado who had attacked her
motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the accused; or and her partner and eventually set their house on fire are
indicating the absence of cause for the act are admissible in evidence.
admissible. Second, at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending
In any event, even if the statements of Evelyn would not qualify
death. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration
as dying declarations, they are nevertheless admissible in
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must
13 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
evidence because they are part of the res gestae. Section 42, Rule set the house on fire. The statements were thus certainly part of
130 of the Rules of Court provides: the res gestae.

SEC. 42. Part of the res gestae.— Statements made by a person Bearing in mind that a dying declaration is considered as
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior "evidence of the highest order," and that, in any event, the
or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, statements were part of the res gestae, as well as the principle
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, that denial is an inherently weak defense,30 the Court thus holds
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, that the CA did not err in affirming Mercado's conviction, as his
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is well to stress that
gestae. the positive identification of the eyewitnesses carries more
weight than an accused's defense of denial.31 Mercado must thus
A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is be held liable for the killing of Evelyn and Alicia.
deemed as part of the res gestae when (1) the principal act,
the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were
Second Issue: Appreciation of the Qualifying Circumstance of
made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3)
Use of Fire
the statements concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.25 The Court, in the early
case of People v. Nartea,26 clarified when a statement may be Mercado faults both the RTC and the CA for raising the crime to
deemed part of the res gestae: Murder by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of use of fire.
He asserts that only the qualifying circumstances of treachery,
The term "res gestae" comprehends a situation which presents a abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation were
startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to produce a alleged in the Information. Thus, the courts erred in appreciating
spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which interval the qualifying circumstance of use of fire.
certain statements are made under such circumstances as to
show lack of forethought or deliberate design in the formulation The argument deserves scant consideration.
of their content. Whether a declaration is a part of the res
gestae depends upon whether the declaration was the facts
talking through the party or the party talking about the facts. (20 The test of sufficiency of an Information is whether it enables a
Am. Jur., Evidence, sec. 662, pp. 553, 556.) While as a general rule person of common understanding to know the charge against
the declaration sought to be proved as part of the res him, and the court to render judgment properly.32 The rule is that
gestae must be contemporaneous with the event established as qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
the principal act, no fixed time from the main occurrence can be Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional
arbitrarily set in order to determine what shall be part of the res right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the
gestae. The factual situation in each instance will set its own accusation against him.33 The Information is sufficient as long as
pattern of time in this respect. (Id., sec. 669; see also Moran, Law the qualifying circumstance is recited in the Information,
of Evidence, revised and enlarged edition, pp. 295-296.) "The regardless of whether designated as aggravating or qualifying, or
marked trend of decisions is to extend, rather than narrow, the whether written separately in another paragraph or lumped
scope of the doctrine admitting declarations as part of the res together with the general averments in a single paragraph.34 The
gestae. Whether specific statements are admissible as part of purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense,
the res gestae is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial precluding surprises during the trial.35
court, the determination of which is ordinarily conclusive upon
appeal, in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion." (20 Am. Jur., With the foregoing legal principles in mind, it is necessary then to
sec. 663, p. 557.)27 determine whether the Information in this case sufficiently
informed the accused of the accusation against him. To recall, the
The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and accusatory portion of the Information states:
statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators
to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the "That on or about the 15th day of October, 2007, in the
commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there accused, armed with a baseball bat and with intent to kill Alicia
was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to Mercado-Lusuriaga and Evelyn Santos, live-in partners, with
fabricate a false statement.28The test of admissibility of evidence evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength,
as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or assault, hit them with the said baseball bat and pour gasoline into
connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as their bodies and light them thereby causing upon them third
to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether degree burns which directly caused their instantaneous death and
it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture the burning of [the] victim's house.
testimony.29
Contrary to law."36 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Applying the foregoing to the present case, the statements of
Evelyn were clearly part of the res gestae. The fire – which caused A reading of the afore-quoted portion of the Information readily
severe injuries on her body, destroyed her house, and killed her reveals that while the "use of fire" was not explicitly mentioned
live-in partner – was undeniably a startling occurrence. Evelyn's as a qualifying circumstance, the Information nevertheless
statements were made immediately after she was rescued, and narrate with sufficiency that Mercado was being accused of
when she was clearly suffering from the pain caused by her "causing x x x third degree burns [against the victims] which
injuries, thereby negating any possibility of her contriving or directly caused their instantaneous death." It escapes the mind of
manufacturing a lie. The statements were also undoubtedly the Court how one could be accused of "causing x x x third degree
about the startling occurrence as Evelyn repeatedly claimed that burns" without necessarily saying that he or she used fire in the
Mercado was the one who attacked her and Alicia, and thereafter process.
14 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
The RTC and the CA thus correctly held that the crime committed observing the fire, someone approached him and handcuffed him
was Murder instead of merely Homicide. Article 248 of the – to which act he did not resist.40 In this connection, the Court
Revised Penal Code provides: quotes with approval the following ratiocination by the CA:

ART. 248. Murder.— Any person who, not falling within the Indeed, there was no spontaneity in the alleged surrender. It will
provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder be observed that accused-appellant had no conscious effort to
and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if surrender. In fact, had accused-appellant not been arrested, he
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: would not have surrendered himself to the authorities. The mere
fact that accused-appellant did not resist his arrest cannot be
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior equated with voluntary surrender. For, as the Supreme Court has
strength, with the aid of armed men, or ruled, to be voluntary, a surrender must be spontaneous and
employing means to weaken the defense or deliberate; that is, there must be an intent to submit oneself
of means or persons to insure or afford unconditionally to the authorities.41
impunity.
Imposable Penalty on Mercado
2. In consideration of a price, reward or
promise. Although the Court affirms the conviction of Mercado, it
nevertheless deems it proper to modify the penalty to be
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, imposed on him. The RTC convicted him of the complex crime of
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, Double Murder and imposed on him the penalty of reclusion
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of perpetua.42 The CA, on the other hand, modified the penalty and
an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or reasoned as follows:
with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin. We, however, find that the penalty imposed by the trial court is
inaccurate with the offense committed by the accused-appellant.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities He was convicted of the crime of Double Murder but the sanction,
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or particularly the imprisonment imposed by the trial court, is only
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, for a single crime of murder. Hence, We modify the penalty and
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other sentence accused-appellant Patrick John Mercado to suffer the
public calamity. penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each Murder he committed.43

5. With evident premeditation.

The ruling of the CA is erroneous. The correct penalty on Mercado
was imposed by the RTC as the crime committed is a complex
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly crime, there being only a single criminal act that resulted in the
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or commission of multiple crimes. Article 48 of the Revised Penal
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Code provides:
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.— When a single act

The crime was therefore correctly qualified to Murder. constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to
Third Issue: Appreciation of the Mitigating Circumstance of
be applied in its maximum period.
Voluntary Surrender

In People v. Gaffud, Jr.,44 the accused therein burned the house

Mercado asserts that the RTC and the CA erred in not of another person, thereby killing the latter and the latter's
appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary daughter. The Court therein held that the accused was guilty of
surrender. He argues that because he did not resist when he was the complex crime of Double Murder and ratiocinated as follows:
arrested by the barangay tanod shortly after Evelyn was brought
to the hospital, then the mitigating circumstance should have In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually
been appreciated in his favor. committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law
as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only
Mercado's argument is misplaced. Relevant is the ruling of the one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.
Court in People v. Saul:37
There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as
x x x For voluntary surrender to mitigate the offense, the following compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more
elements must be present: (a) the offender has not actually been grave or less grave felonies. The second is known as complex
arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for
authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, committing the other.
to be voluntary must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an
intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he The classic example of the first of kind is when a single bullet
acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule
trouble and expenses in capturing him. x x x38 governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number
killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims
In the present case, Mercado did not actually surrender. Instead, expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and
he simply did not offer any resistance when so arrested. The distinct crimes.
records of the case reveal that when Evelyn was transported to
the hospital, Mercado stayed in a nearby house where he In the landmark case People v. Guillen, the Court held that the
watched as their house was engulfed in flames.39 While he was single act of throwing a grenade at President Roxas resulting in
15 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
the death of another person and injuring four others produced of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this
the complex crime of murder and multiple attempted murders. Decision until fully paid.
Under Article 248 of the RPC, murder is committed when a person
is killed by means of explosion. Applying Article 48 of the RPC, the SO ORDERED.
penalty for the crime committed is death, the maximum penalty
for murder, which is the graver offense.
G.R. No. 223274, June 19, 2019

More recently, in People v. Carpo et al., we held that the single act
RCBC BANKARD SERVICES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. MOISES
of hurling a grenade into the bedroom of the victims causing the
ORACION, JR. AND EMILY* L. ORACION, RESPONDENTS.
death of three persons and injuries to one person constituted the
complex crime of multiple murder and attempted murder. Also,
in People v. Comadre, we held: DECISION

The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal CAGUIOA, J.:
Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the
accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition)
committed. The rationale being, that the accused who commits under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) filed by petitioner
two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser RCBC Bankard Services Corporation (petitioner) assailing the
perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts Decision2 dated August 13, 2013 (RTC Decision) and the
and several criminal resolutions. Order3 dated March 1, 2016 (RTC Order) of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 71, Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 73756. The RTC
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may Decision affirmed in toto the Decision4 dated September 28,
quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct 2012 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 72, Pasig City
offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 18629, which dismissed the complaint of
considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty petitioner for lack of preponderance of evidence.5 The RTC Order
is imposed because the offender was impelled by a "single denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.6
criminal impulse" which shows his lesser degree of perversity.
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
In light of these precedents, we hold that the single act of accused
appellant — burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main The antecedent facts as gleaned from the MeTC Decision and
objective of killing the latter and his daughter, Analyn Salvador, narrated in the RTC Decision are straightforward.
resulting in their deaths — resulted in the complex crime of double
murder. Under Article 248 of the RPC, murder is committed by Respondents Moises Oracion, Jr. (Moises) and Emily L. Oracion
means of fire. Since the maximum penalty imposed for murder (Emily) (collectively, respondents) applied for and were granted
was death, when the case was pending in the CA, the CA correctly by petitioner credit card accommodations with the issuance of a
imposed the penalty of death for the complex crime of double Bankard PESO Mastercard Platinum7 with Account No. 5243-
murder instead of the two death penalties imposed by the RTC 0205-8171-4007 (credit card) on December 2,
for two counts of murder. In view, however, of the passage of 2010.8 Respondents on various dates used the credit card in
Republic Act No. 9346 (otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting purchasing different products but failed to pay petitioner the
the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines"), we reduce the total amount of P117,157.98, inclusive of charges and penalties
penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for or at least the minimum amount due under the credit
parole.45 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) card.9 Petitioner attached to its complaint against respondents
"duplicate original" copies of the Statements of Account from
April 17, 2011 to December 15, 201110 (SOAs, Annexes "A", "A-l"
Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, the CA thus incorrectly to "A-8") and the Credit History Inquiry (Annex "B").11 The SOAs
modified the penalty to impose on Mercado two counts bear the name of Moises as the addressee and the Credit History
of reclusion perpetua because there were two victims. The Court Inquiry bears the name: "MR ORACION JR M A" on the top
must perforce modify the penalty once again to conform with portion.12 Despite the receipt of the SOAs, respondents failed and
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Mercado is thus liable only refused to comply with their obligation to petitioner under the
for a single count of reclusion perpetua for both of the deaths of credit card.13 Consequently, petitioner sent a written demand
Evelyn and Alicia. letter (dated January 26, 2012, Annex "C" to the complaint14) to
respondents but despite receipt thereof, respondents refused to
Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta,46 the comply with their obligation to petitioner.15 Hence, petitioner
damages awarded in the questioned Decision are hereby filed a Complaint for Sum of Money16 dated February 7, 2012
modified to P100,000.00 each representing civil indemnity, moral before the MeTC.17
damages, and exemplary damages, in addition to P50,000.00
representing temperate damages for each of the deaths of Evelyn Acting on the complaint, the MeTC issued summons on March 13,
and Alicia. 2012.18 Based on the return of the summons dated April 12, 2012
of Sheriff III Inocentes P. Villasquez, the summons was duly
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is effected to respondents through substituted service on April 11,
hereby DENIED. The Court DECLARES accused-appellant Patrick 2012.19 For failure of respondents to file their answer within the
John Mercado y Anticla GUILTY of DOUBLE MURDER, for which he required period, the MeTC motu proprio, pursuant to Section 6 of
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the Rule on Summary Procedure, considered the case submitted
the eligibility for parole.47 He is further ordered to pay each of the for resolution.20
heirs of Evelyn Santos and Alicia Mercado-Lusuriaga the amounts
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, Ruling of the MeTC
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages,
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary The MeTC, without delving into the merits of the case, dismissed
damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate it on the ground that petitioner, as the plaintiff, failed to
damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate discharge the required burden of proof in a civil case, which is to
16 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
establish its case by preponderance of evidence.21 The MeTC Indeed, Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" and "B", attached to the
justified the dismissal in this wise: complaint, cannot be considered as original documents
Perusal of the records shows that the signature in the contemplated under Section 3, Rule 130 of the x x x Rules of
attachments in support of the [complaint] are mere photocopies, Court. In fact, even [petitioner] found the need to stamp mark
stamp mark22 in the instant case. The Best Evidence Rule provides them as "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL" to differentiate them from the
that the court shall not receive any evidence that is merely original documents.
substitutionary in its nature, such as stamp mark, as long as the
original evidence can be had. Absent a clear showing that the The Court also noted the fact that [petitioner] filed a
original writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced MANIFESTATION dated August 9, 2012, attaching therewith as
in court; the photocopies must be disregarded being unworthy of Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" the Duplicate Original Itemized
any probative value and being an inadmissible piece of evidence [SOAs], and as Annex "B" the Credit History Inquiry. Upon
(PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF examination of these latter annexes, the Court observed that they
APPEALS and LEONILO MARCOS, respondents, G.R. No 127469 are merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the
2004 Jan 15, 1st Division).23 complaint, but with a mere addition of stamp marks bearing the
same inscription as the first stamp marks. These only
The decretal portion of the MeTC Decision dated September 28,
demonstrate that whenever [petitioner] describes a document as
2012 reads:
"DUPLICATE ORIGINAL", it only refers to a copy of the document
WHEREFORE, for lack of [preponderance of evidence, herein
and not necessarily the original thereof. Such substitutionary
[complaint] is hereby DISMISSED.
documents could not be given probative value and are
inadmissible pieces of evidence.31
SO ORDERED.24
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated August 13, 2013
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal25 dated December 17, 2012 on
reads:
the ground that the MeTC Decision was contrary to the facts and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding no cogent reason
law.26
to disturb the Decision of the [MeTC] dated September 28, 2012,
said DECISION is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
In its Memorandum for Appellant27 dated February 19, 2012,
petitioner argued that what it attached to the complaint were the
SO ORDERED.32
"duplicate original copies" and not mere
photocopies.28 Petitioner also argued that: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration33 dated August 29,
x x x [if for] unknown reasons or events the said Duplicate Original 2013, which was denied by the RTC in its Order34 dated March 1,
Copies were no longer found in the record of the court or that the 2016.
copy of the Complaint intended for the court, where these
Originals were attached, was not forwarded to the x x x MTC, Hence, the instant Rule 45 Petition. The Court in its
[petitioner] respectfully submits that justice and equity dictates Resolution35 dated June 27, 2016 required respondents to
that the x x x MTC should have required [petitioner] to produce comment on the Petition and directed the Branch Clerk of Court
or reproduce the same instead of immediately dismissing the of the RTC to elevate the complete records of Civil Case No.
case on that ground alone. In which case, a clarificatory hearing 73756, which were subsequently received by the Court. In view
for that purpose is proper. This is especially true in the present of the returned and unserved copy of the Resolution dated June
case considering that there were allegations in the complaint that 27, 2016, the Court in its Resolution36 dated June 6, 2018
the Duplicate Original Copies were attached as annexes therein; dispensed with respondents' comment.
and that the x x x MTC motu proprio submitted the case for
decision. Not to mention the fact that these documents are The Issues
computer generated reports, in which case, [petitioner] could
simply present another set of printed Duplicate Original Copies Petitioner raises the following issues:
for the x x x MTC['s] perusal.29
Ruling of the RTC 1. on pure question of law, whether the RTC erred in affirming the
MeTC's dismissal of petitioner's complaint in that pursuant to
The RTC found petitioner's appeal to be without merit.30 It Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-
reasoned out that: 7-01-SC), an electronic document is to be regarded as an original
In the instant case, it is up to [petitioner] to prove that the thereof under the Best Evidence Rule and thus, with the
attachments in support of the complaint are originals and not presented evidence in "original duplicate copies," petitioner has
merely substitutionary in nature. Only after submission of such preponderantly proven respondents' unpaid obligation; and
original documents can the court delve into the merit of the case.
2. in any event, invoking the rule that technicalities must yield
[Petitioner's] insistence that it attached Duplicate Original Copies to substantial justice, whether petitioner must be afforded the
of the [SOAs] and the Credit History Inquiry as Annexes x x x in its opportunity to rectify its mistake, offer additional evidence
complaint is entirely for naught, as such documents could not be and/or present to the court another set of direct print-outs of the
considered as original. electronic documents.

A perusal of the said annexes would show that there is a stamp The Court's Ruling
mark at the bottom right portion of each page of the said
annexes, with the words "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (signature) On the first issue, petitioner invokes for the first time on
CHARITO O. HAM, Senior Manager, Collection Support Division appeal the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify its position that
Head, Collection Group, Bankard Inc." it has preponderantly proven its claim for unpaid obligation
against respondents because it had attached to its complaint
Further inspection of the said stamp marks would reveal that the electronic documents. Petitioner argues that since electronic
signatures appearing at the top of the name CHARITO O. HAM in documents, which are computer-generated, accurately
the respective annexes are not original signatures but are part of representing information, data, figures and/or other modes of
the subject stamp marks. written expression, creating or extinguishing a right or obligation,
when directly printed out are considered original reproductions
of the same, they are admissible under the Best Evidence
17 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
Rule.37 Petitioner explains that since the attachments to its authenticity in the manner provided therein. Section 2 of Rule 5
complaint are wholly computer-generated print-outs which it sets forth the required proof of authentication:
caused to be reproduced directly from the computer, they qualify SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. - Before any private electronic
as electronic documents which should be regarded as the document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
equivalent of the original documents pursuant to Section 1, Rule authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.38
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
Procedurally, petitioner cannot adopt a new theory in its appeal purported to have signed the same;
before the Court and abandon its theory in its appeal before the
RTC. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules, petitioner may (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for
has been raised in the court below and is within the issues framed authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
by the parties. document; or

In the Memorandum for Appellant which it filed before the RTC, (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
petitioner did not raise the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify satisfaction of the judge.
that the so-called "duplicate original copies" of the SOAs and
As to method of proof, Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules on Electronic
Credit History Inquiry are electronic documents. Rather, it
Evidence provides:
insisted that they were duplicate original copies, being computer-
SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. - All matters relating to the
generated reports, and not mere photocopies or substitutionary
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document
evidence, as found by the MeTC. As observed by the RTC,
may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
petitioner even tried to rectify the attachments (annexes) to its
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The
complaint, by filing a Manifestation dated August 9, 2012 wherein
affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant
it attached copies of the said annexes. Unfortunately, as observed
to testify on the matters contained therein.
by the RTC, the attachments to the said Manifestation "are
merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the complaint, Evidently, petitioner could not have complied with the Rules on
but with a mere addition of stamp marks bearing the same Electronic Evidence because it failed to authenticate the
inscription as the first stamp marks"39that were placed in the supposed electronic documents through the required affidavit of
annexes to the complaint. Because petitioner has not raised the evidence. As earlier pointed out, what petitioner had in mind at
electronic document argument before the RTC, it may no longer the inception (when it filed the complaint) was to have the
be raised nor ruled upon on appeal. annexes admitted as duplicate originals as the term is understood
in relation to paper-based documents. Thus, the annexes or
Even in the complaint, petitioner never intimated that it intended attachments to the complaint of petitioner are inadmissible as
the annexes to be considered as electronic documents as defined electronic documents, and they cannot be given any probative
in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. If such were petitioner's value.
intention, then it would have laid down in the complaint the basis
for their introduction and admission as electronic documents. Even the section on "Business Records as Exception to the
Hearsay Rule" of Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
Also, estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not requires authentication by the custodian or other qualified
been raised in the proceedings before the lower courts, for the witness:
first time on appeal.40 Clearly, petitioner, by its acts and SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. - A memorandum,
representations, is now estopped to claim that the annexes to its report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
complaint are not duplicate original copies but electronic opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other
documents. It is too late in the day for petitioner to switch similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or
theories. supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and
Thus, procedurally, the Court is precluded from resolving the first such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report,
issue. record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian
Even assuming that the Court brushes aside the above-noted or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
procedural obstacles, the Court cannot just concede that the evidence.
pieces of documentary evidence in question are indeed electronic In the absence of such authentication through the affidavit of the
documents, which according to the Rules on Electronic Evidence custodian or other qualified person, the said annexes or
are considered functional equivalent of paper-based attachments cannot be admitted and appreciated as business
documents41 and regarded as the equivalent of original records and excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
documents under the Best Evidence Rule if they are print-outs or Consequently, the annexes to the complaint fall within the Rule
outputs readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the on Hearsay Evidence and are to be excluded pursuant to Section
data accurately.42 36, Rule 130 of the Rules.

For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it In fine, both the MeTC and the RTC correctly applied the Best
must pass the test of admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 Evidence Rule. They correctly regarded the annexes to the
of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "[a]n electronic document is complaint as mere photocopies of the SOAs and the Credit
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility History Inquiry, and not necessarily the original thereof. Being
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is substitutionary documents, they could not be given probative
authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules." value and are inadmissible based on the Best Evidence Rule.

Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays down the The Best Evidence Rule, which requires the presentation of the
authentication process of electronic documents. Section 1 of Rule original document, is unmistakable:
5 imposes upon the party seeking to introduce an electronic SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When
document in any legal proceeding the burden of proving its the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence

18 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
in the following cases: existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Going back to the documents in question, the fact that a stamp
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
with the markings:
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(Sgd.)
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
CHARITO O. HAM
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss
Senior Manager
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only
Collection Support Division Head
the general result of the whole; and
Collection group
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
Bankard Inc.51
officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)43
was placed at the right bottom of each page of the SOAs and the
With respect to paper-based documents, the original of a
Credit History Inquiry did not make them "duplicate original
document, i.e., the original writing, instrument, deed, paper,
copies" as described above. The necessary allegations to qualify
inscription, or memorandum, is one the contents of which are the
them as "duplicate original copies" must be stated in the
subject of the inquiry.44 Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
complaint and duly supported by the pertinent affidavit of the
an electronic document is regarded as the functional equivalent
qualified person.
of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to
The Court observes that based on the records of the case, only
reflect the data accurately.45 As defined, "electronic document"
the signature in the stamp at the bottom of the Credit History
refers to information or the representation of information, data,
Inquiry appears to be original. The signatures of the "certifying"
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described
person in the SOAs are not original but part of the stamp. Thus,
or however represented, by which a right is established or an
even if all the signatures of Charito O. Ham, Senior Manager,
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and
Collection Support Division Head of petitioner's Collection Group
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
are original, the required authentication so that the annexes to
processed, retrieved or produced electronically; and it includes
the complaint can be considered as "duplicate original copies" will
digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable
still be lacking.
by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document.46 The term "electronic
If petitioner intended the annexes to the complaint as electronic
document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
documents, then the proper allegations should have been made
message"47 and the latter refers to information generated, sent,
in the complaint and the required proof of authentication as
received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.48
"print-outs", "outputs" or "counterparts" should have been
complied with.
Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules and Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence identify the following instances when
The Court is aware that the instant case was considered to be
copies of a document are equally regarded as originals:
governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, which does not
[1] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
expressly require that the affidavits of the witness must
about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are
accompany the complaint or the answer and it is only after the
equally regarded as originals.
receipt of the order in connection with the preliminary
conference and within 10 days therefrom, wherein the parties are
[2] When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,
required to submit the affidavits of the parties' witnesses and
one being copied from another at or near the time of the
other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order,
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
together with their position papers setting forth the law and the
originals.49
facts relied upon by them.52
[3] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
Given the nature of the documents that petitioner needed to
about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart
adduce in order to prove its cause of action, it would have been
produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
prudent on the part of its lawyer, to make the necessary
same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
allegations in the complaint and attach thereto the required
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accompanying affidavits to lay the foundation for their admission
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
as evidence in conformity with the Best Evidence Rule.
be regarded as the equivalent of the original.50
Apparently, "duplicate original copies" or "multiple original This prudent or cautionary action may avert a dismissal of the
copies" wherein two or more copies are executed at or about the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, as what happened in this
same time with identical contents are contemplated in 1 and 3 case, when the court acts pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on
above. If the copy is generated after the original is executed, it Summary Procedure, which provides:
may be called a "print-out or output" based on the definition of SEC. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to
an electronic document, or a "counterpart" based on Section 2, answer the complaint within the period above provided, the
Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
It is only when the original document is unavailable that complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: Provided,
secondary evidence may be allowed pursuant to Section 5, Rule however, That the court may in its discretion reduce the amount
130 of the Rules, which provides: of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
19 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed.54 The
are two or more defendants. Petition indubitably shows the counsel's frantic search for any
ground to resuscitate petitioner's lost cause, which due to the
As provided in the said Section, the judgment that is to be
counsel's fault was doomed with the filing of a deficient
rendered is that which is "warranted by the facts alleged in the
complaint.55 Thus, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 142 of the Rules
complaint" and such facts must be duly established in accordance
the imposition of treble costs on petitioner, to be paid by its
with the Rules on Evidence.
counsel, is justified.
Upon a perusal of the items in the SOAs, the claim of petitioner
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
against respondents is less than P100,000.00,53 if the late
August 13, 2013 and the Order dated March 1, 2016 of the
charges and interest charges are deducted from the total claim of
Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 73756
P117,157.98. Given that the action filed by petitioner is for
are AFFIRMED. Treble costs are hereby charged against the
payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed
counsel for petitioner RCBC Bankard Services Corporation. Let a
P100,000.00 (the jurisdictional amount when the complaint was
copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records of Atty.
filed in January 2013), exclusive of interest and costs, petitioner
Xerxes E. Cortel in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
could have opted to prosecute its cause under the Revised Rules
of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (Revised Rules for Small
SO ORDERED.
Claims).

Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: "A small
claims action is commenced by filing with the court an
accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in
duplicate, accompanied by a Certification Against Forum
Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and Multiplicity of
Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of
the actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the
affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim.
No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the Statement of Claim,
unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence."

If petitioner took this option, then it would have been incumbent

upon it to attach to its Statement of Claim even the affidavits of
its witnesses. If that was the option that petitioner took, then
maybe its complaint might not have been dismissed for lack of
preponderance of evidence. Unfortunately, petitioner included
the late and interest charges in its claim and prosecuted its cause
under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

Proceeding to the second issue, petitioner begs for the relaxation

of the application of the Rules on Evidence and seeks the Court's
equity jurisdiction.

Firstly, petitioner cannot, on one hand, seek the review of its case
by the Court on a pure question of law and afterward, plead that
the Court, on equitable grounds, grant its Petition, nonetheless.
For the Court to exercise its equity jurisdiction, certain facts must
be presented to justify the same. A review on a pure question of
law necessarily negates the review of facts.

Petitioner has not presented any compelling equitable arguments

to persuade the Court to relax the application of elementary
evidentiary rules in its cause.

Secondly, petitioner has not been candid in admitting its error as

pointed out by both the MeTC and the RTC. After being apprised
that the annexes to its complaint do not conform to the Best
Evidence Rule, petitioner did not make any effort to comply so
that the lower courts could have considered its claim. Rather, it
persisted in insisting that the annexes are compliant. Even before
the Court, petitioner did not even attach such documents which
would convince the Court that petitioner could adduce the original
documents as required by the Best Evidence Rule to prove its claim
against respondents.

A Final Note

The present Petition is clearly a frivolous appeal. An appeal is

frivolous if it presents no justiciable question and is so readily
recognizable as devoid of any merit on the face of the record that
20 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
A.C. No. 10031 July 23, 2014 the promised favorable decision before the end of that year was
not issued by the CA, with no explanation from the respondent.7
RAUL M. FRANCIA, Complainant,
vs. On January 4, 2007, the union was advised by their counsel that
ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON, Respondent. the CA has already rendered a decision on their case and the
same was adverse to them. This infuriated the union members
DECISION who then turned to the complainant and demanded for the
return of the 350,000.00 that they raised as respondent’s
facilitation fee. The respondent promised to return the money
REYES, J.:
but asked for a few weeks to do so. After two weeks, the
respondent turned over the amount of ₱100,000.00,
In a verified complaint1 dated December 4, 2007 filed before the representing the unspent portion of the money given to him and
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Committee on Bar Discipline promised to pay the balance of ₱250,000.00 as soon as possible.
(IBP-CBD), Raul M. Francia (complainant) prayed for the The respondent, however, reneged on his promise and would not
disbarment and imposition of other disciplinary sanctions on even advise the complainant of the reason for his failure to return
Labor Arbiter (LA) Reynaldo V. Abdon (respondent) for violation the money. Thus, the complainant was constrained to give his car
of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. to the union to settle the remaining balance which the
respondent failed to return.8
On February 4, 2008, the respondent filed his
Answer2 vehemently denying the allegations in the complaint. To support his claims, the complainant submitted the following
pieces of evidence: (1) a transcript of the exchange of text
On August 13, 2008, both parties appeared at the mandatory messages between him and the respondent;9 (2) affidavit of
conference. Upon its termination, the parties were required to Butch Pena (Pena),10 officer of the Association of Genuine Labor
submit their respective position papers afterwhich the case was Organization (AGLO); (3) a transcript of the text message of a
submitted for resolution. certain Paulino Manongsong, confirming the respondent’s mobile
number;11 (4) copy of the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
In his position paper,3 the complainant alleged that in November 96096;12 and (5) affidavit of Shirley Demillo (Demillo).13
2006, he had a meeting with the respondent at the Makati
Cinema Square to seek his assistance with respect to a pending For his part, the respondent denied that he made any
case in the Court of Appeals (CA) involving the labor union of representation to the complainant; that he had the capacity to
Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative (NEECO III). The said case was facilitate the release of a favorable decision in the CA; and that he
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96096 and raffled to the 6th Division received money in exchange therefor. He admitted that he had a
then chaired by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Justices Edgardo chance meeting with the complainant at the Makati Cinema
Sundiam (Justice Sundiam) and Celia Librea-Leagogo as members. Square in December 2006. Since they have not seen each other
The respondent, who is a LA at the National Labor Relations for a long time, they had a short conversation over snacks upon
Commission, San Fernando, Pampanga, told the complainant that the complainant’s invitation. In the course of their conversation,
he can facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a favorable the complainant asked if he knew of the case involving the union
decision, particularly the award of assets and management of of the NEECO III. He told him that he was not familiar with the
NEECO III to the union. To bolster his representation, he told him details but knew that the same is already pending execution
that the same regional office where he was assigned had earlier before the office of LA Mariano Bactin. The complainant told him
rendered a decision in favor of the labor union and against the that the properties of NEECO III were sold at public auction but
National Electrification Administration.4 With the respondent’s the union members were yet to obtain the proceeds because of
assurance, the complainant yielded. a temporary restraining order issued by the CA. He inquired if he
knew anyone from the CA who can help the union members in
In December 2006, the complainant met the respondent to their case as he was assisting them in following up their case. The
discuss their plan and timetable in securing a favorable ruling respondent answered in the negative but told him that he can
from the CA. The respondent told him that in order to facilitate refer him to his former client, a certain Jaime "Jimmy" Vistan
the release of such favorable decision, the union must produce (Vistan), who may be able to help him. At that very moment, he
the amount of ₱1,000,000.00, a considerable portion of which is called Vistan using his mobile phone and relayed to him the
intended for Justice Sundiam, the ponente of the case and the complainant’s predicament. After giving Vistan a brief
two member justices of the division, while a fraction thereof is background of the case, he handed the mobile phone to the
allotted to his costs.5 complainant, who expounded on the details. After their
conversation,the complainant told him that he will be meeting
Vistan on the following day and asked him if he could accompany
Shortly thereafter, the complainant met the respondent again him. He politely declined and just gave him Vistan’s mobile
and handed him the amount of ₱350,000.00,which was raised out number so that they can directlycommunicate with each other.14
of the individual contributions of the members of the union, as
partial payment for the agreed amount and undertook to pay the
balance as soon as the union is finally allowed to manage and Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who told him
operate the electric cooperative. In turn, the respondent assured that he was given ₱350,000.00 as facilitation fee. After their
him that a favorableruling will be rendered by the CA in no time.6 conversation, he never heard from Vistan again.15

A week before Christmas of the same year, the complainant made In January 2007, he received a text from the complainant, asking
several follow-ups with the respondent about the status of the him to call him through his landline. Over the phone, the
decision. In response to his inquiries, the respondentwould tell complainant told him about his arrangement with Vistan
him that: (1) the decision is being routed for signature of the insecuring a favorable decision for the union but the latter failed
members of the three-man CA division; (2) the lady justice was to do his undertaking. The complainant blamed him for the
the only one left to sign; and (3) the lady justice went to a misfortune and even suspected that he was in connivance with
Christmas party and was not able to sign the decision. Ultimately, Vistan, which he denied. The complainant then asked for his help
to recover the money he gave to Vistan.16

21 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

When their efforts to locate Vistan failed, the complainant turned "It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the
to him again and asked him to return the money because the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the Court to
union threatened him with physical harm. The respondent, exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
however, maintained his lack of involvement in their transaction. must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof."26
Still, the complainant insisted and even threatened he would
cause him miseryand pain should he not return the money. In Aba v. De Guzman, Jr.,27 the Court reiterated that a
Offended by the innuendoof collusion in the complainant’s preponderance of evidence is necessary before a lawyer maybe
language, the respondent yelled at him and told him, "Ano bang held administratively liable, to wit:
malaking kasalanan ko para takutin mo ako ng ganyan?" before
he hang up the phone. He never heard from the complainant
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or
thereafter. Then, on December 18, 2007, he was surprised
suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently
toreceive a copy of the complaint for disbarment filed by the
held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
complainant against him.17
imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.

In the Report and Recommendation18 of the IBP-CBD dated

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by
September 30, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner
one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that
recommended for the dismissal of the complaint, holding that
of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the
there is no proof that the respondent received money from the
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
complainant.19 The report reads, as follows:
thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or
not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider
The case is dismissible. the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b)
the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
There is no proof that respondent Reynaldo Abdon received any means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
amount of money from complainant Raul Francia. testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’
While it is true that respondentReynaldo Abdon admitted that he interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so
introduced the complainant to Jaime Vistan, there is no proof that far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the
the respondent received any money from the complainant Raul number of witnesses, although it does not mean that
Francia or from Jaime Vistan. preponderance is necessarily with the greater
number.28 (Citations omitted)
The attached Annex "A" of the complaint is of no moment. As
pointed out by the respondent it is easy to manipulate and In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of
fabricate text messages. That complainant could have bought the innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him
said SIM card bearing the said telephone number and texted his must be dismissed.29
other cellphone numbers to make it appear that such text
messages came from the cellphone of the respondent. Those text After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case,
messages are not reliable as evidence. the Court finds that the evidence submitted by the complainant
fell short of the required quantum of proof. Aside from bare
xxxx allegations, no evidence was presented to convincingly establish
that the respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct,
particularly in extortion and influence-peddling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of
merit.20 Firstly, the transcript of the alleged exchange of text messages
between the complainant and the respondent cannot be
admitted in evidence since the same was not authenticatedin
Upon review of the case, the IBP Board of Governors issued
accordance with A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, pertaining to the Rules on
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-545,21 reversing the recommendation
Electronic Evidence. Without proper authentication, the text
of the Investigating Commissioner, disposing thus:
messages presented by the complainant have no evidentiary
value.
RESOLVED TO REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
The Court cannot also give credence to the affidavits of Pena and
APPROVE the SUSPENSIONfrom the practice of law for one (1)
Demillo which, on close examination, do not prove anything
year of Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon and to Return the Amount of Two
about the alleged transaction between the complainant and the
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]250,000.00) within thirty (30)
respondent. In his affidavit, Pena, an officer of AGLO, the
days from receipt of notice.22
organization assisting the union members of NEECO III, alleged:

On February 23, 2009, the respondent filed a Motion for

THAT, sometime in the first weekof November 2006, the former
Reconsideration23 but the IBP Board of Governors denied the
workers and employees of NEECO III informed me of their desire
same in its Resolution No. XX-2013-55,24 which reads:
to engage the services of a third party to help facilitate the
expeditious release of a favorable decision from the Court of
RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent’s Motion for Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 96096, and that they already contacted
Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the a friend of mine, Mr. Raul Francia, who knows somebody who can
findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the help us work on the CA case;
matters which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-545 dated
THAT, in succeeding separate meetings with Mr. Francia, he
November 20, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.25
intimated to me on various occasions that he had contracted a
certain Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon, a labor arbiter based in San
The case is now before thisCourt for confirmation.

22 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

Fernando, Pampanga to facilitate the expeditious release of a In Alitagtag v. Atty. Garcia,32 the Court emphasized, thus:
favorable decision from the Court of Appeals;
Indeed, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution,
THAT, I gathered from Mr. Francia and based on the information and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that
given to me by the former workers and employees of NEECO III, seriously affects the standing and the character ofthe lawyer as
Labor Arbiter Abdon asked for [P]1 [M]illion to cover the amount an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment
to be given to the justices of the Court of Appeals handling the should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could
case and facilitation and mobilization fees; accomplish the end desired. Without doubt, a violation of the
high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
THAT, sometime towards the end of the first week of December, imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and
the former workers and employees of NEECO III met with Mr. disbarment. However, the said penalties are imposed with great
Francia at our office. They handed to him [P]350,000[.00] as caution, because they are the most severe forms of disciplinary
downpayment for the []1 [M]illion being demanded by Mr. action and their consequences are beyond repair.33 (Citations
Abdon, the balance of which would have been payable on a later omitted)
agreed period;
The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has,
THAT, the [P]350,000[.00] was sourced by the former workers nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an
and employees of NEECO III from their personal contributions; illegal deal when he introduced the complainant to Vistan, who
and was the one who allegedly demanded ₱1,000,000.00
infacilitation fee from the union members. The records bearout
that the complainant, at the outset, made clear his intention to
THAT, soon after the meeting with the former workers and
seek the respondent’s assistance in following up the union’s case
employees of NEECO III, Mr. Francia left to meet with Labor
in the CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly
Arbiter Abdon to deliver the money[.]30
declining the favor sought in order to avoid any appearance of
impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to
It is clear from the foregoing thatPena never had the opportunity Vistan, a former client who allegedly won a case in the CA in
to meet the respondent. He never knew the respondent and did August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the
not actually see him receiving the money that the union members complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable
raised as facilitation fee. His statement does not prove at all resolution of cases and does this for a fee. This fact was made
thatthe alleged illegal deal transpired between the complainant known to him by Vistan himself duringa telephone conversation
and the respondent.If at all, it only proved that the union when the latter told him he was given ₱350,000.00 as facilitation
members made contributions to raise the amount of money fee.34 His connection with Vistan was the reason why the
required as facilitation fee and that they gave it to the complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him
complainant for supposed delivery to the respondent. However, and that he got a portion of the loot. His gesture of introducing
whether the money was actually delivered to the respondent was the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that what the
not known to Pena. latter asked of him was with his approval. It registered a mistaken
impression on the complainant that his case can be expeditiously
The same observation holds true with respect to the affidavit of resolved by resorting to extraneous means or channels. Thus,
Demillo, an acquaintance of the complainant, who claims to have while the respondent may not have received money from the
witnessed the transaction between the parties at the Makati complainant, the fact is that he has made himself instrumental to
Cinema Square. She alleged that she saw the complainant Vistan’s illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the legal
handing a bulging brown supotto an unidentified man while the profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on
two were at the open dining space of a café. Upon seeing the the integrity of the judiciary for which he must be imposed with a
complainant again, she learned that the person he was talking to disciplinary sanction.
at the café was the respondent LA.31
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that
Demillo’s affidavit, however, does not prove any relevant fact that a "lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
will establish the respondent’s culpability.1âwphi1 To begin with, legal profession." For, the strength of the legal profession lies in
it was not established with certainty that the person whom she the dignity and integrity of its members.35 It is every lawyer’s duty
saw talking with the complainant was the respondent. Even to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying trueto his
assuming that respondent’s identity was established, Demillo oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
could not have known about the complainant and respondent’s
business by simply glancing at them while she was on her way to Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a
the supermarket to run some errands. That she allegedly saw the further responsibility to safeguard the dignity of the courts which
complainant handing the respondent a bulging brown the public perceives as the bastion of justice. Hemust at all times
supothardly proves any illegal transaction especially that she does keep its good name untarnished and not be instrumental to its
not have knowledge about what may have been contained in the disrepute. In Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona,36 the Court reiterated
said bag. the bounden duty of lawyers to keep the reputation of the courts
unscathed, thus:
The complainant miserably failed tosubstantiate his claims with
preponderant evidence. Surely, he cannot prove the A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an
respondent’s culpability by merely presenting equivocal instrument or agency to advance the endsof justice.["] [x x x] His
statementsof some individuals or relying on plain gestures that duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which
are capable of stirring the imagination. Considering the lasting he owes fidelity, ["]not to promote distrust inthe administration
effect of the imposition of the penalty of suspension or of justice." [x x x] Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to
disbarment on a lawyer’s professional standing, this Court cannot preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to
allow that the respondent be held liable for misconduct on the the continuity of the government and to the attainment of the
basis of surmises and imagined possibilities. A mere suspicion liberties of the people." [x x x] Thus has it been said of a lawyer
cannot substitute for the convincing and satisfactory proof that "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to
required to justify the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer.
23 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and
regard towards the courts so essential to the proper
administration of justice."37

A strong and independent judiciary is one of the key elements in

the orderly administration of justice. It holds a revered status in
the society as the public perceives it as the authority of what is
proper and just, and abides by its pronouncements. Thus, it must
keep its integrity inviolable and this entails that the members of
the judiciary be extremely circumspect in their actions, whether
in their public or personal dealings. Nonetheless, the duty to
safeguard the good name of the judiciary is similarly required
from all the members of the legal profession. The respondent,
however, compromised the integrity of the judiciary by his
association with a scoundrel who earns a living by dishonoring the
court and maliciously imputing corrupt motives on its members.

The Court reiterates its directive tothe members of the Bar to be

mindful of the sheer responsibilities thatattach to their
profession. They must maintain high standards of legal
proficiency, aswell as morality including honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. For, they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of
publicopinion and community approbation. Needless to state,
those whose conduct – both public and private – fails this scrutiny
would have to bedisciplined and, after appropriate proceedings,
penalized accordingly.38

WHEREFORE, for having committed an act which compromised

the public’s trust in the justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon is
hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for a period of ONE
(1) MONTH effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator which shall
circulate the same in all courts in the country, and attached to the
personal records of Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon in the Office of the
Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

24 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

A.M. No. P-11-2979 November 18, 2014 apprehended inside the premises of the RTC, Branch 20, Imus,
[formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3352-P] Cavite, in the act of receiving the money from the complainant.

ELLA M. BARTOLOME, Complainant, In support of her allegations, the complainant attached to her
vs. affidavit-complaint the transcribed electronic communications
ROSALIE B. MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL (text messages) between her and the respondent;2 a copy of an
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent. Electronic Psychiatric History form given to her by the respondent
for her to accomplish in filing the petition for annulment of
DECISION marriage;3 a copy of the Imus Police Station Blotter showing that
the respondent was apprehended during the entrapment
operation conducted by police officers of Imus Police Station on
PER CURIAM:
November 11, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.;4 and a versatile compact disc
(VCD) containing the video taken during the entrapment
This administrative matter started through the sworn affidavit operation conducted against the respondent.5
complaint1 in the vernacular, dated December 16, 2009, that Ella
M. Bartolome (complainant) filed against Rosalie B. Maranan
The Court, in a 1st Indorsement6 dated March 19, 2010, required
[respondent, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
the respondent to comment onthe complaint against her.
Branch 20, Imus, Cavite], charging her with extortion, graft and
corruption, gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a court
employee. In her Comment dated May 27, 2010,7 the respondent denied the
accusations against her. She alleged her belief that Bartolome is
a fictitious name as the affidavit-complaint does not indicate the
The complainant alleged that the respondent asked money from
complainant’s exact address. She asserted that her detention at
her in the amount of ₱200,000.00, which was later reduced to
Imus Police Station does not prove her culpability since no actual
₱160,000.00, to facilitate the filing of her case for annulment of
criminal charges were filed against her. She claimed that the lapse
marriage. She further alleged that the respondent undertook to
of six (6) months from the time of the alleged incident indicates
have the case decided in her favor without the need of court
that the complaint is pure and simple harassment orchestrated
appearances during the proceedings of the case. For a clear and
by a lawyer or litigant who has a grudge against her and who
complete picture of the accusations against the respondent, we
wants to publiclybesmirch her reputation. In support of her
quote verbatim the pertinent portions of the complainant’s
defense, the respondent mentioned that even Judge Fernando L.
narration of the incidents that gave rise to the filing of the present
Felicen (Judge Felicen), Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 20, Imus,
administrative complaint –
Cavite interceded for her release from detention.

xxxx
On July 29, 2010, the complainant sent a letter to the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA),8 without indicating her address,
2. Na noong October 21, 2009 nakilala ko si ROSALIE alleging that she has to constantly change residence because
MARANAN na isang stenographer sa Regional Trial Court ng Imus, unidentified persons had been seen in their neighborhood asking
Cavite. Nasabihan ko siya ng aking kagustuhan na magsampa ng questions about her. She has also been receiving text messages
annulment of marriage case. Agad niya akong inalok at from the respondent telling her that her complaint would only be
pinangakuan na kaya niyang ipasok ang aking annulment case sa dismissed because she knows people in the Supreme Court. The
RTC, Br. 20, Imus, Cavite kung saan siya nagtratrabaho. Noong respondent also threatened retaliation against her after the case
una ang hinihingi niya sa akin ay halagang TWO HUNDRED is terminated. The complainant further claimed that the pieces of
THOUSAND PESOS (₱200,000.00) pero humingi ako sakanya ng evidence she submitted are sufficient to prove the respondent’s
discount at pumayag siya sa ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND anomalous activities, and prayed for the immediate resolution of
PESOS (₱160,000.00). Ako po ay naengganyo na magtiwala sa her complaint.
kanya dahil nangako siya na siya na ang bahala sa lahat. May
kausap na daw siyang abogado na pipirma sa petisyon koat di ko
Based on the complainant’s pleadings and evidence, the OCA,
na daw kailangan pang umappear sa korte. Sinabi niya na malakas
(through then Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches and
daw siya sa judge at sa fiscal at siya lang daw ang pinapayagan na
OCA Chief of Legal Office Wilhelmina D. Geronga) submitted its
magpasok ng mga aaregluhin na kaso sa kanilang korte. Sinabi
Report to the Court dated May 9, 2011,9 finding enough evidence
niya din na kasama na sa ₱160,000.00 ang para sa judge at sa
to prove the respondent’s involvement in anomalous activities
fiscal kaya siguradong maaaprubahan ang aking annulment case
and recommending that –
sa mabilis na panahon. Kasama po ng Affidavit Complaint na ito
ang transcript at ang SIM Carday aking ipadadala kapag ako ay
makasigurado na ang Korte Suprema ay poprotektahan ang mga 1) OCA IPI No. 10-3352-P be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
ebidensya laban kay MARANAN sapagkat rito lahat nakatagon administrative matter;
(sic) ang mga text messages at nakarecord lahat ng calls nitong si
ROSALIE MARANAN sa akin na nagpapatunay ng panghihingi niya 2) respondent Rosalie B. Maranan, Court Stenographer
sa akin ng pera at pangako na aaregluhin niya ang aking III, Regional Trial Court, Branch20, Imus, Cavite, be
annulment of marriage case. Ang cellphone number po na found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct
nagaappear dito sa SIM ay kay ROSALINA MARANAN, ang numero Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; and
niya ay 09175775982. Maaaring nagpalit na ng numero ang
inirereklamo ko kung kaya’t maganda rin na ipag-utos ang pag- 3) respondent Maranan be immediately DISMISSED
alam ng detalye mula sa Globe Telecoms kung saan post-paid from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits
subscriber ang may-ari ng numero na iyan. [Emphasis supplied] except her accrued leave credits, and withperpetual
disqualification from employment in any government
To put an end to the respondent’s extortion activities, the agencies or instrumentalities, including government
complainant decided to report the matter to the police owned and controlled corporations.
authorities. During the entrapment operation conducted by
police officers of Imus Police Station, the respondent was

25 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

In a Resolution dated September 5, 2011,10 the Court required 21/10/09 9:13pm
the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit their
case for resolution on the basis of the pleadingsfiled. The D kaba tlaga makakatawag ngayon
respondent filed her Manifestation dated November 17,
201111 submitting the case for resolution by the Court. She
21/10/09 9:18pm
reiterated her complete innocence and "vigorous" and
"vehement" denial ofthe allegations against her. She insisted that
the present complaint against her is plain and simple harassment Ako n lang tatawag sayo kc mahirap ang txt lang
and a vexatious suit by the complainant who either has a grudge
against her or must have been used by another person with a 21/10/09 9:24pm
grudge against her. All she did was tosecure the services of a
lawyer at the complainant’s request; this act, she claimed, does Tawag n lng ako ha
not constitute graft and corruption, gross misconduct, conduct
unbecoming of a court employee and extortion.
21/10/09 9:49pm
The complainant did not respond to our September 5, 2011
Resolution as it was returned unserved on her. Wenevertheless Natitiwala ako sayo ha dahil hindi lahat pinagbibigyan
considered the case submitted for resolution considering her namin. Sally n lang tawag mo sakin nagtataka lng kc ako
letter of July 16, 2010 praying for the immediate resolution of her kanina kc buong buong buo yung txt ng name ko e.
complaint.
21/10/09 9:51pm
In our Internal Resolution dated December 7, 2011,12
we resolved
to refer the complaint to the OCA for evaluation, report and Ay sorry mali pala sabi ko sayo 160k pala singil namin
recommendation.
22/10/09 10:05am
The OCA responded through its Memorandum of July 16,
2012,13 finding that the pieces of evidence on record establish the Gud am. Ano pwede k bukas
guilt of the respondent on the charges of Gross Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service filed against
22/10/09 10:25am
her. It recommended that the respondent be found guilty of the
offenses charged and be dismissed from the service, with
forfeiture of retirement benefits except her accrued leave credits ls txt bak naghihintay po kme
and with perpetual disqualification from employment in any
government agency. 22/10/09 10:51am

The Court fully agrees with the OCA’s recommendation. Bukas lng available si atty

The respondent’s bare denial cannot overcome the evidence 22/10/09 10:56am
supporting the complainant’s accusation that she demanded
money on the promise that she would facilitate the annulment of Sana kung makakagawa ka daw paraan bukas kahit 40k
her (complainant’s) marriage. The respondent’s actions from the n lng muna down tapos 3pm bukas
time the complainant started communicating with her on
October 21, 2009 and thereafter through a series of messages
22/10/09 11:04am
they exchanged via SMS,14 until the entrapment operation on
November 11, 2009, showed that the complaint is indeed
meritorious. The respondent’s text messages sent to the Ok pero d kita pilipilit ha nasayopa din and decision yan
complainant corroborate that she promised to expedite – in ang sakin lng kc nagmamadali k at tsaka yun ang free
exchange for a monetary consideration of ₱160,000.00 and that time ng lawyer ha
she would provide the lawyer who would file the annulment case
– the complainant’s annulment case once it is filed:15 22/10/09 11:11am

21/19/09 8:40pm Ella pakihusto mo n daw pala 50k at ibabayad daw mua
sa psychiatrist at osg kahit sa susunod n lng daw yung
Sino po to sa kanya

21/10/09 8:53pm 22/10/09 1:09pm

Sino nagrefer sayo sakin ano pangalan? The complainant described the respondent as an influence
peddler in the courts of Imus, Cavite who acts as a conduit to
judges, prosecutors and private law practitioners.
21/10/09 8:54pm

In her comment to the complaint,the respondent admitted that

San mo nakuha # ko
"she suggested to the complainant the name of a lawyer friend,
Atty. Renante C. Bihasa (Atty. Bihasa), and forwarded to her the
21/10/09 9:05pm cell phone number of this lawyer so that theycould discuss the
case." While she was in detention at Imus Police Station, she
Ako rin magbibigay lawyer sayo called Atty. Bihasa, who told her that he was on his way and
assured her that he had already asked his lawyer friends to assist
26 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
her. Atty. Bihasa arrived at about five o’clock in the afternoon. As Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible
it was already beyond office hours, she was told by Atty. Bihasa evidence, subject to certain conditions. "Ephemeral electronic
of the possibility that she would be detained pending communication" refers to telephone conversations, text
investigation. Atty. Bihasa returned the following day and was messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video,
joined by Judge Felicen and her officemates. Judge and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of
Feliceninterceded in her behalf that she begiven permission by which is not recorded or retained.20 It may be proven by the
the police officers to leave her detention in order to take a bath testimony of a person who was a party to the communications or
and change clothes. She was granted permission, with the full has personal knowledge thereof.21 In the present case, we have
guaranty of Judge Felicen that she would return.16 no doubt regarding the probative value of the text messages as
evidence in considering the present case. The complainant, who
In an affidavit17 dated May 28, 2010, Atty. Bihasa corroborated was the recipient of the text messages and who therefore has
the respondent’s allegations. In his affidavit, he narrated that personal knowledge of these text messages, identified the
upon receiving a call from the respondent that she was being respondent as the sender through cellphone number
detained, he immediately called up two (2) of his lawyer friends 09175775982. The respondent herself admitted that her
based at Imus, Atty. Wilfredo P. Saquilayan and Atty. Jose conversations with the complainant had been thru SMS
Emmanuel Montoya, to assist the respondent. As he arrived at messaging and thatthe cellphone number reflected in the
Imus Police Station at around past four o’clock in the afternoon, complainant’s cellphone from which the text messages originated
he told the respondent of the probability of her detention until was hers. She confirmed that it was her cellphone number during
formal charges were filed against her. According to him, "[he] the entrapment operation the Imus Cavite Police conducted22
took it upon [himself] to assist[the respondent] on that date and
accompanied her while the police officers of Imus PNP were doing Sally:
their routine work on suspects."
Halika dito sa office, sa clerk of court. Pupunta ka
Atty. Bihasa further narrated thaton the next day at about five ngayon? O sige, sige, pupunta ka ngaun? Ah sige OK,
o’clock in the afternoon, he went backto Imus Police Station to salamat! Ang number ko …
wait for the complainant. After a few hours, the respondent’s co-
workers, including Judge Felicen arrived. They waited for the Lalaki:
complainant until seven o’clock in the evening but she failed to
come. Only the complainant’s lawyer arrived who informed the
Ibigay ko sa kanya?
police investigator that the complainant cannot come out of fear
because of the death threats she received.18
Sally:
The concern that Atty. Bihasa and Judge Felicen showed to the
respondent while under detention at Imus PNP Station gives rise Oo, ang number ko ay 09175775982, ok thank you.
to the suspicion that they have knowledge and tolerate the
respondent’s anomalous activities. The respondent’s text The complainant submitted two (2) copies of the
messages to the complainant support this suspicion:19 VCD23 containing pictures taken during the entrapment
conducted by the Imus Cavite Police on November 11, 2009.24
At tsaka alam mo naman nakailang appointment n tayo
sa abogado hiyang hiya nga ako kahapon e Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions
7/11/09 3:13pm shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or
displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some
Tawagan ko muna si judge kung pwede pa kami
other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
tumanggap hanggang wed

We viewed the VCD and the video showed the actual entrapment
7/11/09 3:15pm
operation. The complainant herself certified that the video and
text messages are evidence of her complaint against the
Try ko lng respondent, "Sapat at malinaw ang lahat ng ebidensya na kasama
ng aking reklamo na nagpapatunay na totoo lahat ang nakasaad
7/11/09 3:25pm sa aking reklamo. Kitang kita sa video at sa mga text messages
niya ang kanyang modus operandi at paggamit niya ng pwesto sa
Hanggang Tuesday na lg tayo after nun nxt year na. Yan gobyerno upang makapanghingi ng malaking pera sa mga
ang sabi inosenteng tao." It is also well to remember that in administrative
cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied.25 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC specifically provides that these
7/11/09 3:28pm
rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining
a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.
Sayang kc ang haba n ng time mo dp natuloy sabi ko
naman sayo e kapag inabot ng naghigpit dn pwede
The Court totally agrees with the OCA’s finding that the
none appearance. Yun nagan nagpatulong sakin
respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial
kahapon lng tumawag yun d sana nagka sabay n kayo
to the best interest of the service. The respondent’s assertion
that Bartolome is a fictitious name because the complainant has
7/11/09 3:59pm not stated in her complaint her exact address is preposterous in
light of the evidence of direct personal and text message contacts
Ok po mit po tayo bukas 10 am sinabi ko napo kay atty. between them. In the absence of supporting evidence, the claim
Tnx po. See you po that the complaint against her is pure and simple harassment

27 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

orchestrated by persons with grudge against her, is mere
conjectural allegation.

As a public servant, nothing less than the highest sense of honesty

and integrity is expected of the respondent at all times.26 She
should be the personification of the principle that public office is
a public trust.27 The respondent unfortunately fell extremely
short of the standards that should have governed her life as a
public servant. By soliciting money from the complainant, she
committed a crimeand an act of serious impropriety that
tarnished the honor and dignity of the judiciary and deeply
affected the people’s confidence in it. She committed an ultimate
betrayal of the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the
judiciary by peddling influence to litigants, thereby creating the
impression that decision can be bought and sold.28 The Court has
never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the socalled "bad-
eggs" in the judiciary.29 We have been resolute in our drive to
discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the service errant
magistrates, employees and even Justices of higher collegiate
appellate courts for any infraction that gives the Judiciary a bad
name. To stress our earnestness in this pursuit, we have, in fact,
been unflinching in imposing discipline on errant personnel or in
purging the ranks of those undeserving to remain in the service.30

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Rosalie B. Maranan,

Court Stenographer Ill, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus,
Cavite, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service and is accordingly DISMISSED from
the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any government
agency including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits are ordered
forfeited.1âwphi1 This decision shall be immediately executory.

The Court further Resolves to REQUIRE Judge Fernando L. Felicen,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite and Atty. Renante C.
Bihasa, to file their Comments on their alleged participation in the
anomalous activities of the respondent, within fifteen ( 15) days
from notice. This directive is without prejudice to the
investigation of all or selected employees and officials of the
Branch, who may have participated in anomalous transactions
relating to annulment of marriage.

The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby directed to submit

to this Court, within thirty (30) days, a list of the annulment of
marriage decisions of Judge Fernando L. Felicen for the past ten
(10) years, indicating therein the judgments made and the names
of participating lawyers and prosecutors.

The Office of the Chief Attorney shall analyze the submitted data,
including the records of and the proceedings in the listed cases,
and recommend to the Court the actions it should take in the
event a pattern of corruption involving annulment of marriage
cases emerges. The Office of the Chief Attorney is given ninety
(90) days from receipt of the Office of the Court Administrator's
list, within which to submit its recommendations to the Court.

The Office of the Court Administrator shall likewise refer this

administrative case and its records to the Ombudsman for
whatever action it may take within its jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

28 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017 that, "the preliminary investigation conducted was highly
irregular, and that the subpoena issued against [them] was
LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, AND patently defective amounting to a denial of their rights to due
RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners, v. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, IN process."16
HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF PALAYAN CITY, BRANCH 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, IN HIS On July 13, 2007, the panel of investigating prosecutors,
CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, composed of Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr., Eddie C. Gutierrez, and Edison
ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, AND EDDIE C. V. Rafanan, denied petitioners' motion and ordered the
GUTIERREZ,IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF submission of their counter-affidavits.17
INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS, AND RAUL M. GONZALEZ, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, Respondents. Petitioners filed their respective counter-affidavits.18 They also
filed a (1) Motion to conduct Clarificatory Hearing and to Allow
[them] to Submit Written Memorandum,19 and a (2) Joint
DECISION
Supplemental Counter-Affidavit on Common Legal Grounds in
Support of their Prayer to Dismiss the Case,20 both dated August
LEONEN, J.: 21, 2007.

Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must On October 23, 2007, the panel issued an Order21 again denying
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause the motion. Petitioners moved for reconsideration,22 which was
based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's report and denied by the panel in the Resolution23 dated November 14,
its supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an 2007.
arrest warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence.
However, they cannot remand the case for another conduct of The panel of prosecutors issued on April 11, 2008 a Joint
preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier Resolution,24 reviewed and approved by Officer-in-charge
preliminary investigation was improperly conducted. Provincial Prosecutor Floro F. Florendo (Prosecutor Florendo).
The panel found probable cause for murder in the killing of Carlito
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition1 with a Prayer for Bayudang and Jimmy Peralta, and for kidnapping with murder in
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order ,and/or Writ of the killing of Danilo Felipe, against the nineteen 19 suspects.
Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners seek to have the Orders2 dated However, the panel considered one of the suspects, Julie Flores
July 18, 20083 and December 2, 20084 of the Regional Trial Court, Sinohin, as a state witness. The panel recommended that the
Palayan City, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P and 1880-P corresponding Informations be filed against the remaining
nullified and set aside and the criminal cases against them suspects.25 On the same day, two (2) Informations26 for murder
dismissed. were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch
40 in Nueva Ecija, (Palayan cases) and an Information27 for
Petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casiño, kidnapping with murder was filed in Guimba, Nueva Ecija (Guimba
and Rafael V. Mariano (petitioners) are former members of the case).
House of Representatives. Liza represented Gabriela Women's
Party (Gabriela), Saturnino and Teodoro represented Bayan Petitioners filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable
Muna Party-List (Bayan Muna), while Rafael represented Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright on the Guimba
Anakpawis Party-List (Anakpawis).5 case. This was opposed by the panel of investigating prosecutors
and Prosecutor Florendo.28 After the hearing on the motion and
In three letters6 all dated December 14, 2006, Police Senior submission of the parties' memoranda, Judge Napoleon R. Sta.
Inspector Arnold M. Palomo (Inspector Palomo), Deputy Romana issued an Order29 dated August 5, 2008, dismissing the
Provincial Chief of the Nueva Ecija Criminal Investigation and case for lack of probable cause.30
Detection Team, referred to the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, three (3) cases of murder against On April 21, 2008, petitioners also filed a Motion for Judicial
petitioners and 15 other persons.7 Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case
Outright31 on the Palayan cases. They requested the court to
Inspector Palomo named 19 individuals, including Petitioners, move forward with the presented evidence and decide if there
who were allegedly responsible for the death of Carlito Bayudang, were probable cause and, consequently, dismiss the case outright
Jimmy Peralta, and Danilo Felipe.8 His findings show that the if there were none.32
named individuals conspired, planned, and implemented the
killing of the supporters of AKBAYAN Party List (AKBAYAN), a rival The panel of investigating prosecutors and Prosecutor Florendo
of Bayan Muna and Gabriela.9 Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe opposed the motion.33 Petitioners filed their Reply34 on May 12,
were AKBAYAN community organizers,10 whereas Jimmy Peralta 2008.
was mistaken for a certain Ricardo Peralta, an AKBAYAN
supporter.11 On April 25, 2008 and May 12, 2008, the motion was heard by the
Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40.35 Thereafter, both
Inspector Palomo recommended that a preliminary investigation parties submitted their respective memoranda.36
be conducted and that an Information for each count of murder
be filed against the 19 individuals.12 On July 18, 2008, Presiding Judge Evelyn A. Atienza-Turla (Judge
Turla) issued an Order37 on the Palayan cases. Judge Turla held
On February 2, 2007, Investigating Prosecutor Antonio Ll. Lapus, that "the proper procedure in the conduct of the preliminary
Jr. issued a subpoena13 requiring petitioners to testify at the investigation was not followed in [the Palayan] cases"38 due to
hearings scheduled on February 16 and 23, 2007. the following:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On March 9, 2007, petitioners filed a Special Appearance with First, the records show that the supposed principal witnesses for
Motion to Quash Complaint/Subpoena and to Expu[ng]e the prosecution were not presented before the panel of
Supporting Affidavits.14 They argue that the Provincial Prosecutor prosecutors, much less subscribed their supposed affidavits
had no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation since before them.
no valid complaint was filed against them.15 They also claimed
29 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
 circumstances obtaining in [the cases] and not just 'passing the
The marginal note of one of the panel member, Asst. Prov'l Pros. buck' to the panel of prosecutors[.]"41
Eddie Gutierrez said it all, thus: "I concur with the conclusion but I
would have been more than satisfied if witnesses for the The dispositive portion reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
prosecution were presented." WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court hereby resolves
to:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Second, the charge against [petitioners] is Murder (two counts), a
non-bailable offense. The gravity of the offense alone, not to
mention the fact that three of the movants are incumbent Party- 1.) SET ASIDE the "Joint Resolution" of the Nueva Ecija
List Representatives while the other one was a former Party-List Provincial Prosecutor's Office dated, April 11,
Representative himself, whose imprisonment during the 2008 finding probable cause for two (2) counts of
pendency of the case would deprive their constituents of their Murder against the herein movants; and,
duly-elected representatives should have merited a deeper and
more thorough preliminary investigation. 2.) ORDER the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva
Ecija to conduct the preliminary investigation on the
The panel of prosecutors, however, did nothing of the sort and incidents subject matter hereof in accordance with the
instead swallowed hook, line and sinker the allegations made by mandates of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Isabelita Bayudang, Cleotilde Peralta[,] and Alvaro Juliano, and
principally hinges on the affidavit of Julie Sinohin, a supposed "co-
conspirator" of the movants, which were all not "subscribed or SO ORDERED.42 (Emphasis in the original)
sworn" before the said panel. Petitioners moved for partial reconsid ration43 of the July 18,
2008 Order, praying for the outright dismissal of the Palayan
Given the foregoing circumstances, this Court for all practical cases against them for lack of probable cause.44 The Motion was
purposes will do an even worse job than what the panel of denied by Judge Turla in an Order dated December 2, 2008.45
prosecutors did, by accepting in its entirety the findings of the
said panel ,despite its obvious flaws. This practice should not be Hence, on March 27, 2009, petitioners filed this Petition for
condoned. Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against
.... Judge Evelyn A. Turla, Prosecutors Floro F. Florendo, Antonio Ll.
Lapus, Jr., Edison V. Rafanan, and Eddie C. Gutierrez, and Justice
Third, [petitioners'] filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez (respondents).46
resolution of the preliminary investigation conducted by the
panel of prosecutors is allowed by the rules.... Petitioners pray that the July 18, 2008 and December 2, 2008
Orders of Judge Turla be set aside and annulled and that the
.... murder cases against them be dismissed for failure to show
probable cause. They also ask for the issuance of a temporary
Strictly speaking, the filing of a "Motion for Reconsideration" is an restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
integral part of the preliminary investigation proper. There is no Judge Turla from remanding the cases to the provincial
dispute that the two (2) Informations for murder were prosecutors, and "the respondent prosecutors from conducting
filed without first affording the movants their right to file a further preliminary investigation [on] these cases."47
motion for reconsideration. The denial thereof is tantamount to
a denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. This fact Petitioners claim that they "have no plain, speedy[,] and adequate
alone already renders preliminary investigation conducted in this remedy in the ordinary course of law[.]"48 They also contend that
case incomplete. The inevitable conclusion is that the movants "[r]espondents' actions will certainly cause grave and irreparable
were not only effectively denied the opportunity to file a "Motion damage to [their] constitutional rights unless injunctive relief is
for Reconsideration" of the "Joint Resolution" dated April 11, afforded them through the issuance of a writ of preliminary
2008 issued by the panel of prosecutors assigned in these cases, injunction and/or temporary restraining order[.]"49
but were also deprived of their right to a full preliminary
investigation preparatory to the filing of the Information against They allege that Judge Turla acted with grave abuse of discretion
them. (Emphasis in the original, citation amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
omitted).39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary [I] WHEN SHE SHIRKED FROM HER CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
Judge Turla further held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONERS AND
In this case, the undue haste in filing of the information against INSTEAD REMANDED THE CASES TO THE OFFICE OF THE
movants cannot be ignored. From the gathering of evidence until PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR DESPITE LACK OF EVIDENCE.
the termination of the preliminary investigation, it appears that
the state prosecutors were overly-eager to file the case and to [II] WHEN SHE DID NOT DISMISS THE CASES DESPITE THE LACK OF
secure a warrant of arrest of [petitioners] without bail and their EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST
consequent detention. There can be no gainsaying the fact that PETITIONERS.
the task of ridding society of criminals and misfits and sending
them to jail in the hope that they. will in the future reform and be [III] WHEN SHE REFUSED TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF FAILURE OF
productive members of the community rests both on the THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONERS
judiciousness of judges and the prudence of the prosecutors. ARE PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT.
There is however, a standard in the determination of the
existence of probable cause. The determination has not [IV] FOR IGNORING THE ISSUE OF INADMISSIBILITY OF
measured up to that standard in this PROSECUTiON EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF
case.40chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE.50chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Judge Turla added that her order of remanding the Palayan cases Petitioners claim that Judge Turla's order of remanding the case
back to the provincial prosecutors "for a complete preliminary back to the prosecutors had no basis in law, jurisprudence, or the
investigation is not a manifestation of ignorance of law or a willful rules. Since she had already evaluated the evidence submitted by
abdication of a duty imposed by law ... but due, to the peculiar the prosecutors along with the Informations, she should have
30 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
determined the existence of probable cause for the issuance of
arrest warrants or the dismissal of the Palayan cases.51 Furthermore, respondent prosecutors' finding of probable cause
is correct since evidence against petitioners show that more likely
Petitioners assert that under the Rules of Court, in case of doubt than not, they participated in the murder of the alleged
on the existence of probable cause, Judge Turla could "order the victims.62 The prosecutors' finding is not a final declaration of
prosecutor to present additional evidence [or] set the case for their guilt. It merely engages them to trial.63
hearing so she could make clarifications on the factual issues of
the case."52 Finally, respondents argue that the "issue of admissibility or
inadmissibility of evidence is properly addressed during the trial
Moreover, petitioners argue that the setting aside of the Joint on the merits of the case and not during the early stage of
Resolution establishes the non-existence of probable cause preliminary investigation."64
against them. Thus, the cases against them should have been
dismissed.53 Petitioners filed their Reply65 on September 24, 2009. Aside from
reiterating their allegations and arguments in the petition, they
Petitioners aver that the documents submitted by the added that direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction
prosecution are neither relevant nor admissible evidence.54 The was allowed as their petition involved legal
documents "do not establish the complicity of the petitioner questions.66 Moreover, the inclusion of Secretary Gonzalez as
party-list representatives to the death of the supposed victims."55 nominal party-respondent was allowed under Rule 65, Section
567 of the Rules of Court.68
On May 29, 2009, respondents filed their Comment56 through the
Office of the Solicitor General, raising the following We resolve the following issues:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
arguments:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I First, whether petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of
courts in bringing their petition directly before this
THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATING THE Court;chanrobleslaw
HIERARCHY OF COURTS.
Second, whether respondent Judge Turla gravely abused her
II discretion when she remanded the Palayan cases to the Provincial
Prosecutor for the conduct of preliminary investigation; and
RESPONDENT JUDGE'S ACTION IN REMANDING THE CASES FOR
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A RECOGNITION OF THE Finally, whether admissibility of evidence can be ruled upon m
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS TO preliminary investigation.
DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PURPOSES OF FILING
APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INFORMATION. I

III. This petition is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of

courts.
THE PROSECUTION RIGHTLY FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE TO
WARRANT THE FILING OF THE INDICTMENTS. This Court thoroughly explained the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts in The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections:69
IV. The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was
created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary
A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT A PRONOUNCEMENT OF performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
GUILT BUT MERELY BINDS A SUSPECT TO STAND TRIAL. Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation
of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise
V. competent to determine issues of law which may include the
validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in
THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OR INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these
PROPERLY ADDRESSED DURING THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS OF functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then
THE CASE AND NOT DURING THE EARLY STAGE OF PRELIMINARY into branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial
INVESTIGATION.57chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important
task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these are
Respondents claim that the petition before this Court violates the physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts
principle of hierarchy of courts. They contend that petitioners occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present
should have filed their petition before the Court of Appeals since the 'actual case' that makes ripe a determination of the
it also exercises original jurisdiction over petitions constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course,
for certiorari and prohibition. According to respondents, would be national in scope. There are, however, some cases
petitioners failed to justify a direct resort to this Court.58 where resort to courts at their level would not be practical
considering their decisions could still be appealed before the
Respondents also allege that respondent Secretary Gonzalez was higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals.
wrongly impleaded. There was no showing that he exercised
judicial or quasi-judicial functions, for which certiorari may be The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court
issued.59 that reviews the determination of facts and law made by the trial
courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more
On the allegation that Judge Turla reneged on her constitutional standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court. But the
duty to determine robable cause, respondents counter that she Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special
did not abandon her mandate.60 Her act of remanding the cases civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide
to the public prosecutors "is a confirmation of her observance of scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act
the well-settled principle that such determination of probable on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless
cause is an exclusive executive function of the prosecutorial arm there are factual questions to determine.
of our government."61
31 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ....
ground or further reiterating - in the light of new circumstances
or in the light of some confusions of bench or bar - existing Seventh, [there is] no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition in the ordinary course of law[.]
of the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates
these doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that role. ... The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone
is sufficient ground to allow direct resort to this court.
In other words, the Supreme Court's role to interpret the
Constitution and act in order to protect constitutional rights when Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by
these become exigent should not be emasculated by the doctrine public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or
in respect of the hierarchy of courts. That has never been the demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders
purpose of such doctrine. complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy." In the past,
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately
This court has "full discretionary power to take cognizance and despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right
assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari ... filed to bear arms, government contracts involving modernization of
directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if voters' registration lists, and the status and existence of a public
warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically office.
raised in the petition." As correctly pointed out by petitioners, we
have provided exceptions to this ....
doctrine:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are occur at the same time to justify a direct resort to this
genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the court.70 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
most immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes
In First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management
availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the
Corp. (PPMC), et al.,71 this Court reiterated that it "will not
constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive
entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress
branches of the government.
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the
....
extraordinary remedy of a writ of certiorari."72
A second exception is when the issues involved are of
In this case, the presence of compelling circumstances warrants
transcendental importance. In these cases, the imminence and
the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. At the time the petition
clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh
was filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives.
the necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to constitutional
The possibility of their arrest and incarceration should the
issues of transcendental importance prevents courts from the
assailed Orders be affirmed, would affect their representation of
paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need
their constituents in Congress.
for substantial protection.
Although the circumstances mentioned are no longer present,
....
the merits of this case necessitate this Court's exercise of
jurisdiction.
Third, cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this
court. In cases of first impression, no jurisprudence yet exists that
II
will guide the lower courts on this matter. In Government of the
United States v. Purganan, this court took cognizance of the case
The remand of the criminal cases to the Provincial Prosecutor for
as a matter of first impression that may guide the lower
the conduct of another preliminary investigation is improper.
courts:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the
Petitioners assert that the documents submitted along with the
important issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we deem it
Informations are sufficient for Judge Turla to rule on the existence
best to take cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings
of probable cause. If she finds the evidence inadequate, she may
constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as yet,
order the prosecutors to present additional evidence. Thus,
no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
according to petitioners, Judge Turla's action in remanding the
.... case to the prosecutors for further preliminary investigation lacks
legal basis.
Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this
court. In Drilon v. Lim, this court held Petitioners' contention has merit.
that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
... it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming Rule 112, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a RULE 112
thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the
concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
discussion.
.... ....

Fifth, ... Exigency in certain situations would qualify as an SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. -
exception for direct resort to this court.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10) days from the
Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ... filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
32 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds In Leviste v. Hon. Alameda, et al.:81
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a [T]he task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed
commitment order when the complaint or information was filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or
pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to
from the filing of the complaint or information. personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally
A plain reading of the provision shows that upon filing of the
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by
information, the trial court judge has the following options: (1)
the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination
probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment
of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied
order if findings show probable cause; or (3) order the prosecutor
that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor's
to present additional evidence if there is doubt on the existence
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
of probable cause.73
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause.82 (Citations omitted)
The trial court judge's determination of probable cause is based
on her or his personal evaluation of the prosecutor's resolution Regardless of Judge Turla's assessment on the conduct of the
and its supporting evidence. The determination of probable cause preliminary investigation, it was incumbent upon her to
by the trial court judge is a judicial function, whereas the determine the existence of probable cause against the accused
determination of probable cause by the prosecutors is an after a personal evaluation of the prosecutors' report and the
executive function.74 This Court clarified this concept in Napoles supporting documents. She could even disregard the report if she
v. De Lima:75 found it unsatisfactory, and/or require the prosecutors to submit
During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines the additional evidence. There was no option for her to remand the
existence of probable cause for filing an information in court or case back to the panel of prosecutors for another preliminary
dismissing the criminal complaint. As worded in the Rules of investigation. In doing so, she acted without any legal basis.
Court, the prosecutor determines during preliminary
investigation whether "there is sufficient ground to engender a III
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
trial." At this stage, the determination of probable cause is an preliminary investigation.
executive function. Absent grave abuse of discretion, this
determination cannot be interfered with by the courts. This is In a preliminary investigation,
consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. ...the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they
On the other hand, if done to issue an arrest warrant, the merely determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender
determination of probable cause is a judicial function. No less a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
than the Constitution commands that "no ... warrant of arrest respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined trial.83chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
To emphasize, "a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
to a trial[;] [i]t is not a trial on the merits." 84 Since "it cannot be
produce[.]" This requirement of personal evaluation by the judge
expected that upon the filing of the information in court the
is reaffirmed in Rule 112, Section 5 (a) of the Rules on Criminal
prosecutor would have already presented all the evidence
Procedure[.]
necessary to secure a conviction of the accused,"85 the
admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon
....
in a preliminary investigation.
Therefore, the determination of probable cause for filing an
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed
information in court and that for issuance of an arrest warrant are
Orders dated July 18, 2008 and December 2, 2008 of the Regional
different. Once the information is filed in court, the trial court
Trial Court, Palayan City, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P
acquires jurisdiction and "any disposition of the case as to its
and 1880-P are SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Regional
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
Trial Court, Palayan City, Branch 40 for further proceedings with
sound discretion of the Court."76 (Citations omitted)
due and deliberate dispatch in accordance with this Decision.
In De Lima v. Reyes,77 this Court further
held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The courts do not interfere with the prosecutor s conduct of a
preliminary investigation. The prosecutor s determination of
probable cause is solely within his or her discretion. Prosecutors
are given a wide latitude of discretion to determine whether an
information should be filed in court or whether the complaint
should be dismissed.78 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Thus, when Judge Turla held that the prosecutors' conduct of
preliminary investigation was "incomplete"79 and that their
determination of probable cause "has not measured up to [the]
standard,"80 she encroached upon the exclusive function of the
prosecutors. Instead of determining probable cause, she ruled on
the propriety of the preliminary investigation.

33 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

G.R. No. 181881 October 18, 2011 have pending cases in the Csc. The justice in our govt system will
not be served if this will continue. Please investigate this anomaly
BRICCIO "Ricky" A. POLLO, Petitioner, because our perception of your clean and good office is being
vs. tainted.
CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, DIRECTOR IV
RACQUEL DE GUZMAN BUENSALIDA, DIRECTOR IV LYDIA A. Concerned Govt employee3
CASTILLO, DIRECTOR III ENGELBERT ANTHONY D. UNITE AND THE Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four personnel
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents. with background in information technology (IT), and issued a
memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically
DECISION "to back up all the files in the computers found in the
Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions."4 After some
briefing, the team proceeded at once to the CSC-ROIV office at
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Panay Avenue, Quezon City. Upon their arrival thereat around
5:30 p.m., the team informed the officials of the CSC-ROIV,
This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a respondents Director IV Lydia Castillo (Director Castillo) and
government employee who was charged administratively and Director III Engelbert Unite (Director Unite) of Chairperson
eventually dismissed from the service. The employee’s personal David’s directive.
files stored in the computer were used by the government
employer as evidence of misconduct.
The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the
PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD) was witnessed by several
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite who closely
45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated monitored said activity. At around 6:00 p.m., Director Unite sent
October 11, 2007 and Resolution2 dated February 29, 2008 of the text messages to petitioner and the head of LSD, who were both
Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari out of the office at the time, informing them of the ongoing
(CA-G.R. SP No. 98224) filed by petitioner Briccio "Ricky" A. Pollo copying of computer files in their divisions upon orders of the CSC
to nullify the proceedings conducted by the Civil Service Chair. The text messages received by petitioner read:
Commission (CSC) which found him guilty of dishonesty, grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
"Gud p.m. This is Atty. Unite FYI: Co people are going
service, and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 and
over the PCs of PALD and LSD per instruction of the
penalized him with dismissal.
Chairman. If you can make it here now it would be
better."
The factual antecedents:
"All PCs Of PALD and LSD are being backed up per
Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC memo of the chair."
Regional Office No. IV and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public
Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the "Mamamayan
"CO IT people arrived just now for this purpose. We
Muna Hindi Mamaya Na" program of the CSC.
were not also informed about this.

On January 3, 2007 at around 2:30 p.m., an unsigned letter-

"We can’t do anything about … it … it’s a directive from
complaint addressed to respondent CSC Chairperson Karina
chair."
Constantino-David which was marked "Confidential" and sent
through a courier service (LBC) from a certain "Alan San Pascual"
of Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, was received by the Integrated "Memo of the chair was referring to an anonymous
Records Management Office (IRMO) at the CSC Central Office. complaint"; "ill send a copy of the memo via mms"5
Following office practice in which documents marked
"Confidential" are left unopened and instead sent to the Petitioner replied also thru text message that he was leaving the
addressee, the aforesaid letter was given directly to Chairperson matter to Director Unite and that he will just get a lawyer.
David. Another text message received by petitioner from PALD staff also
reported the presence of the team from CSC main office: "Sir may
The letter-complaint reads: mga taga C.O. daw sa kuarto natin."6 At around 10:00 p.m. of the
same day, the investigating team finished their task. The next day,
all the computers in the PALD were sealed and secured for the
The Chairwoman
purpose of preserving all the files stored therein. Several
Civil Service Commission
diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
of PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson
David. The contents of the diskettes were examined by the CSC’s
Dear Madam Chairwoman, Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). It was found that most of the files in
the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer
Belated Merry Christmas and Advance Happy New Year! assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering about
40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters7 in
As a concerned citizen of my beloved country, I would like to ask connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other
from you personally if it is just alright for an employee of your tribunals. On the basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued
agency to be a lawyer of an accused gov’t employee having a the Show-Cause Order8 dated January 11, 2007, requiring the
pending case in the csc. I honestly think this is a violation of law petitioner, who had gone on extended leave, to submit his
and unfair to others and your office. explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice.

I have known that a person have been lawyered by one of your Evaluating the subject documents obtained from petitioner’s
attorny in the region 4 office. He is the chief of the Mamamayan personal files, Chairperson David made the following
muna hindi mamaya na division. He have been helping many who observations:
34 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
Most of the foregoing files are drafts of legal pleadings or with pending cases at the CSC and alleged that those files found
documents that are related to or connected with administrative in his computer were prepared not by him but by certain persons
cases that may broadly be lumped as pending either in the CSCRO whom he permitted, at one time or another, to make use of his
No. IV, the CSC-NCR, the CSC-Central Office or other tribunals. It computer out of close association or friendship. Attached to the
is also of note that most of these draft pleadings are for and on motion were the affidavit of Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa who
behalves of parties, who are facing charges as respondents in entrusted his own files to be kept at petitioner’s CPU and Atty.
administrative cases. This gives rise to the inference that the one Eric N. Estrellado, the latter being Atty. Solosa’s client who
who prepared them was knowingly, deliberately and willfully attested that petitioner had nothing to do with the pleadings or
aiding and advancing interests adverse and inimical to the bill for legal fees because in truth he owed legal fees to Atty.
interest of the CSC as the central personnel agency of the Solosa and not to petitioner. Petitioner contended that the case
government tasked to discipline misfeasance and malfeasance in should be deferred in view of the prejudicial question raised in
the government service. The number of pleadings so prepared the criminal complaint he filed before the Ombudsman against
further demonstrates that such person is not merely engaged in Director Buensalida, whom petitioner believes had instigated this
an isolated practice but pursues it with seeming regularity. It administrative case. He also prayed for the lifting of the
would also be the height of naivete or credulity, and certainly preventive suspension imposed on him. In its Resolution No.
against common human experience, to believe that the person 07051912 dated March 19, 2007, the CSC denied the omnibus
concerned had engaged in this customary practice without any motion. The CSC resolved to treat the said motion as petitioner’s
consideration, and in fact, one of the retrieved files (item 13 answer.
above) appears to insinuate the collection of fees. That these
draft pleadings were obtained from the computer assigned to On March 14, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent
Pollo invariably raises the presumption that he was the one Petition13 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-
responsible or had a hand in their drafting or preparation since G.R. SP No. 98224, assailing both the January 11, 2007 Show-
the computer of origin was within his direct control and Cause Order and Resolution No. 070382 dated February 26, 2007
disposition.9 as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to excess or total absence of jurisdiction. Prior to this, however,
Petitioner filed his Comment, denying that he is the person petitioner lodged an administrative/criminal complaint against
referred to in the anonymous letter-complaint which had no respondents Directors Racquel D.G. Buensalida (Chief of Staff,
attachments to it, because he is not a lawyer and neither is he Office of the CSC Chairman) and Lydia A. Castillo (CSC-RO IV)
"lawyering" for people with cases in the CSC. He accused CSC before the Office of the Ombudsman, and a separate complaint
officials of conducting a "fishing expedition" when they unlawfully for disbarment against Director Buensalida.14
copied and printed personal files in his computer, and
subsequently asking him to submit his comment which violated On April 17, 2007, petitioner received a notice of hearing from
his right against self-incrimination. He asserted that he had the CSC setting the formal investigation of the case on April 30,
protested the unlawful taking of his computer done while he was 2007. On April 25, 2007, he filed in the CA an Urgent Motion for
on leave, citing the letter dated January 8, 2007 in which he the issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction.15 Since he failed
informed Director Castillo that the files in his computer were his to attend the pre-hearing conference scheduled on April 30,
personal files and those of his sister, relatives, friends and some 2007, the CSC reset the same to May 17, 2007 with warning that
associates and that he is not authorizing their sealing, copying, the failure of petitioner and/or his counsel to appear in the said
duplicating and printing as these would violate his constitutional pre-hearing conference shall entitle the prosecution to proceed
right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and with the formal investigation ex-parte.16 Petitioner moved to
warrantless search and seizure. He pointed out that though defer or to reset the pre-hearing conference, claiming that the
government property, the temporary use and ownership of the investigation proceedings should be held in abeyance pending
computer issued under a Memorandum of Receipt (MR) is ceded the resolution of his petition by the CA. The CSC denied his
to the employee who may exercise all attributes of ownership, request and again scheduled the pre-hearing conference on May
including its use for personal purposes. As to the anonymous 18, 2007 with similar warning on the consequences of petitioner
letter, petitioner argued that it is not actionable as it failed to and/or his counsel’s non-appearance.17 This prompted petitioner
comply with the requirements of a formal complaint under the to file another motion in the CA, to cite the respondents,
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service including the hearing officer, in indirect contempt.18
(URACC). In view of the illegal search, the files/documents copied
from his computer without his consent is thus inadmissible as
On June 12, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
evidence, being "fruits of a poisonous tree."10
07113419 denying petitioner’s motion to set aside the denial of
his motion to defer the proceedings and to inhibit the designated
On February 26, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. hearing officer, Atty. Bernard G. Jimenez. The hearing officer was
07038211 finding prima facie case against the petitioner and directed to proceed with the investigation proper with dispatch.
charging him with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A.
In view of the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the
No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
motion of the prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have
Officials and Employees). Petitioner was directed to submit his
waived his right to the formal investigation which then proceeded
answer under oath within five days from notice and indicate
ex parte.
whether he elects a formal investigation. Since the charges fall
under Section 19 of the URACC, petitioner was likewise placed
under 90 days preventive suspension effective immediately upon On July 24, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 071420,20 the
receipt of the resolution. Petitioner received a copy of Resolution dispositive part of which reads:
No. 070382 on March 1, 2007.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration, to hereby finds Briccio A. Pollo, a.k.a. Ricky A. Pollo GUILTY of
Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
basis having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond the Interest of the Service and Violation of Republic Act 6713. He is
authority of the CSC Chairman, such power pertaining solely to meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all its
the court. Petitioner reiterated that he never aided any people accessory penalties, namely, disqualification to hold public office,
35 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service send, or receive on the computer system; and (3) there is nothing
eligibilities and bar from taking future civil service examinations.21 contemptuous in CSC’s act of proceeding with the formal
investigation as there was no restraining order or injunction
On the paramount issue of the legality of the search conducted issued by the CA.
on petitioner’s computer, the CSC noted the dearth of
jurisprudence relevant to the factual milieu of this case where the His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA,
government as employer invades the private files of an employee petitioner brought this appeal arguing that –
stored in the computer assigned to him for his official use, in the
course of initial investigation of possible misconduct committed I
by said employee and without the latter’s consent or
participation. The CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY
United States Supreme Court, and cited the leading case of
ERRED AND COMMITTED SERIOUS IRREGULARITY AND
O’Connor v. Ortega22 as authority for the view that government
BLATANT ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING TO GRAVE
agencies, in their capacity as employers, rather than law
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT
enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in the
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT IS ACTIONABLE UNDER E.O.
governmental workplace without meeting the "probable cause"
292 WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THE CONTRARY IS
or warrant requirement for search and seizure. Another ruling
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED UNDER 2nd PARAGRAPH OF
cited by the CSC is the more recent case of United States v. Mark
SECTION 8 OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 99-1936, WHICH
L. Simons23 which declared that the federal agency’s computer
IS AN [AMENDMENT] TO THE ORIGINAL RULES PER CSC
use policy foreclosed any inference of reasonable expectation of
RESOLUTION NO. 94-0521;
privacy on the part of its employees. Though the Court therein
recognized that such policy did not, at the same time, erode the
respondent’s legitimate expectation of privacy in the office in II
which the computer was installed, still, the warrantless search of
the employee’s office was upheld as valid because a government THE HONORABLE COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED AND
employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to COMMITTED PALPABLE ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING
an investigation of work-related misconduct provided the search TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED
is reasonable in its inception and scope. THAT PETITIONER CANNOT INVOKE HIS RIGHT TO
PRIVACY, TO UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE,
With the foregoing American jurisprudence as benchmark, the AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, BY VIRTUE OF OFFICE
CSC held that petitioner has no reasonable expectation of privacy MEMORANDUM NO. 10 S. 2002, A MERE INTERNAL
with regard to the computer he was using in the regional office in MEMORANDUM SIGNED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY
view of the CSC computer use policy which unequivocally RESPONDENT DAVID AND NOT BY THE COLLEGIAL
declared that a CSC employee cannot assert any privacy right to COMMISSION CONSIDERING THAT POLICY MATTERS
a computer assigned to him. Even assuming that there was no INVOLVING SUB[S]TANTIAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE
such administrative policy, the CSC was of the view that the COVERED BY AN OFFICE MEMORANDUM WHICH IS
search of petitioner’s computer successfully passed the test of LIMITED TO PROCEDURAL AND ROUTINARY
reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as INSTRUCTION;
enunciated in the aforecited authorities. The CSC stressed that it
pursued the search in its capacity as government employer and III
that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation
involving work-related misconduct, which exempts it from the THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND
warrant requirement under the Constitution. With the matter of COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT
admissibility of the evidence having been resolved, the CSC then RULED THAT MEMO SEARCH DATED JANUARY 3, 2007
ruled that the totality of evidence adequately supports the AND THE TAKING OF DOCUMENTS IN THE EVENING
charges of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to THEREOF FROM 7:00 TO 10:00 P.M. IS NOT GRAVE
the best interest of the service and violation of R.A. No. 6713 ABUSE OF DISCRETION LIMITING THE DEFINITION [OF]
against the petitioner. These grave infractions justified GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ONE INVOLVING AND
petitioner’s dismissal from the service with all its accessory TAINTED WITH PERSONAL HOSTILITY. IT
penalties. LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DATA STORED IN
THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS ARE GOVERNMENT
In his Memorandum24 filed in the CA, petitioner moved to PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PERSONAL FILES WHEN
incorporate the above resolution dismissing him from the service THE CONTRARY IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 14 OF
in his main petition, in lieu of the filing of an appeal via a Rule OM. 10 s. 2002. AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED STILL WHEN
43 petition. In a subsequent motion, he likewise prayed for the IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT DAVID BY VIRTUE OF O.M.
inclusion of Resolution No. 07180025 which denied his motion for 10 DID NOT ENCROACH ON THE DUTIES AND
reconsideration. FUNCTIONS OF A JUDGE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III,
SECTION 2 OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION;
By Decision dated October 11, 2007, the CA dismissed the
petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of discretion IV
committed by respondents CSC officials. The CA held that: (1)
petitioner was not charged on the basis of the anonymous letter THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO
but from the initiative of the CSC after a fact-finding investigation CONSIDER ALL OTHER NEW ARGUMENTS, ADDITIONAL
was conducted and the results thereof yielded a prima facie case EVIDENCE HEREUNTO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS ITS
against him; (2) it could not be said that in ordering the back-up FAILURE TO EVALUATE AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 2
of files in petitioner’s computer and later confiscating the same, MOTIONS TO ADMIT AND INCORPORATE CSC
Chairperson David had encroached on the authority of a judge in RESOLUTION NOS. 07-1420 DATED JULY 24, 2007 AND
view of the CSC computer policy declaring the computers as CSC RESOLUTION 07-1800 DATED SEPTEMBER 10,
government property and that employee-users thereof have no 2007. IT DID NOT RULE LIKEWISE ON THE FOUR
reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they create, store,
36 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
 URGENT MOTION TO RESOLVE ANCILLARY PRAYER FOR their guests could enter the office. The Court thus "recognized
TRO.26 that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy
against intrusions by police."
Squarely raised by the petitioner is the legality of the search
conducted on his office computer and the copying of his personal That the Fourth Amendment equally applies to a government
files without his knowledge and consent, alleged as a workplace was addressed in the 1987 case of O’Connor v.
transgression on his constitutional right to privacy. Ortega34 where a physician, Dr. Magno Ortega, who was
employed by a state hospital, claimed a violation of his Fourth
The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this Amendment rights when hospital officials investigating charges of
jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee mismanagement of the psychiatric residency program, sexual
against unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article harassment of female hospital employees and other irregularities
III of the 1987 Constitution,27 which provides: involving his private patients under the state medical aid
program, searched his office and seized personal items from his
desk and filing cabinets. In that case, the Court categorically
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
declared that "[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
merely because they work for the government instead of a
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
private employer."35 A plurality of four Justices concurred that
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
the correct analysis has two steps: first, because "some
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable", a court must
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
consider "[t]he operational realities of the workplace" in order to
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
determine whether an employee’s Fourth Amendment rights are
be seized.
implicated; and next, where an employee has a legitimate privacy
expectation, an employer’s intrusion on that expectation "for
The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for
and seizures but only of "unreasonable" searches and investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by
seizures.28 But to fully understand this concept and application the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances."36
for the purpose of resolving the issue at hand, it is essential that
we examine the doctrine in the light of pronouncements in
On the matter of government employees’ reasonable
another jurisdiction. As the Court declared in People v. Marti29 :
expectations of privacy in their workplace, O’Connor teaches:

Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against

x x x Public employees’ expectations of privacy in their offices,
unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in the 1935
desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in
Charter which, worded as follows:
the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office
practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. x x x The
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, employee’s expectation of privacy must be assessed in the
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures context of the employment relation. An office is seldom a private
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees, and
probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination business and personal invitees. Instead, in many cases offices are
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses continually entered by fellow employees and other visitors during
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be the workday for conferences, consultations, and other work-
searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Sec. 1[3], related visits. Simply put, it is the nature of government offices
Article III) that others – such as fellow employees, supervisors, consensual
visitors, and the general public – may have frequent access to an
was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment individual’s office. We agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that
to the United States Constitution. As such, the Court may turn to "[c]onstitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the
the pronouncements of the United States Federal Supreme Court government does not disappear merely because the government
and State Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this has the right to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as
jurisdiction.30 employer," x x x but some government offices may be so open to
fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is
In the 1967 case of Katz v. United States,31 the US Supreme Court reasonable. x x x Given the great variety of work environments in
held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a the public sector, the question of whether an employee has a
conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-
booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a "search and case basis.37 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
seizure". Because the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal telephone On the basis of the established rule in previous cases, the US
call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such Supreme Court declared that Dr. Ortega’s Fourth Amendment
area. In the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was rights are implicated only if the conduct of the hospital officials
further noted that the existence of privacy right under prior infringed "an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to
decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has consider as reasonable." Given the undisputed evidence that
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and respondent Dr. Ortega did not share his desk or file cabinets with
second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to any other employees, kept personal correspondence and other
recognize as reasonable (objective).32 private items in his own office while those work-related files (on
physicians in residency training) were stored outside his office,
In Mancusi v. DeForte33 which addressed the reasonable and there being no evidence that the hospital had established any
expectations of private employees in the workplace, the US reasonable regulation or policy discouraging employees from
Supreme Court held that a union employee had Fourth storing personal papers and effects in their desks or file cabinets
Amendment rights with regard to an office at union headquarters (although the absence of such a policy does not create any
that he shared with other union officials, even as the latter or expectation of privacy where it would not otherwise exist), the

37 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH

Court concluded that Dr. Ortega has a reasonable expectation of and the work of these agencies inevitably suffers from the
privacy at least in his desk and file cabinets.38 inefficiency, incompetence, mismanagement, or other work-
related misfeasance of its employees. Indeed, in many cases,
Proceeding to the next inquiry as to whether the search public employees are entrusted with tremendous responsibility,
conducted by hospital officials was reasonable, the O’Connor and the consequences of their misconduct or incompetence to
plurality decision discussed the following principles: both the agency and the public interest can be severe. In contrast
to law enforcement officials, therefore, public employers are not
enforcers of the criminal law; instead, public employers have a
Having determined that Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation
direct and overriding interest in ensuring that the work of the
of privacy in his office, the Court of Appeals simply concluded
agency is conducted in a proper and efficient manner. In our view,
without discussion that the "search…was not a reasonable search
therefore, a probable cause requirement for searches of the type
under the fourth amendment." x x x "[t]o hold that the Fourth
at issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public
Amendment applies to searches conducted by [public employers]
employers. The delay in correcting the employee misconduct
is only to begin the inquiry into the standards governing such
caused by the need for probable cause rather than reasonable
searches…[W]hat is reasonable depends on the context within
suspicion will be translated into tangible and often irreparable
which a search takes place. x x x Thus, we must determine the
damage to the agency’s work, and ultimately to the public interest.
appropriate standard of reasonableness applicable to the search.
xxx
A determination of the standard of reasonableness applicable to
a particular class of searches requires "balanc[ing] the nature and
quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment xxxx
interests against the importance of the governmental interests
alleged to justify the intrusion." x x x In the case of searches In sum, we conclude that the "special needs, beyond the normal
conducted by a public employer, we must balance the invasion of need for law enforcement make the…probable-cause requirement
the employees’ legitimate expectations of privacy against the impracticable," x x x for legitimate, work-related noninvestigatory
government’s need for supervision, control, and the efficient intrusions as well as investigations of work-related misconduct. A
operation of the workplace. standard of reasonableness will neither unduly burden the efforts
of government employers to ensure the efficient and proper
xxxx operation of the workplace, nor authorize arbitrary intrusions
upon the privacy of public employees. We hold, therefore,
that public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected
In our view, requiring an employer to obtain a warrant whenever
privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory,
the employer wished to enter an employee’s office, desk, or file
work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-
cabinets for a work-related purpose would seriously disrupt the
related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of
routine conduct of business and would be unduly burdensome.
reasonableness under all the circumstances. Under this
Imposing unwieldy warrant procedures in such cases upon
reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the
supervisors, who would otherwise have no reason to be familiar
intrusion must be reasonable:
with such procedures, is simply unreasonable. In contrast to other
circumstances in which we have required warrants, supervisors in
offices such as at the Hospital are hardly in the business of "Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold
investigating the violation of criminal laws. Rather, work-related inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the…action was
searches are merely incident to the primary business of the justified at its inception,’ x x x ; second, one must determine
agency. Under these circumstances, the imposition of a warrant whether the search as actually conducted ‘was reasonably related
requirement would conflict with the "common-sense realization in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in
that government offices could not function if every employment the first place,’" x x x
decision became a constitutional matter." x x x
Ordinarily, a search of an employee’s office by a supervisor will be
xxxx "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee
is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary
The governmental interest justifying work-related intrusions by
for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a
public employers is the efficient and proper operation of the
needed file. x x x The search will be permissible in its scope when
workplace. Government agencies provide myriad services to the
"the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of
public, and the work of these agencies would suffer if employers
the search and not excessively intrusive in light of …the nature of
were required to have probable cause before they entered an
the [misconduct]." x x x39 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
employee’s desk for the purpose of finding a file or piece of office
correspondence. Indeed, it is difficult to give the concept of
probable cause, rooted as it is in the criminal investigatory Since the District Court granted summary judgment without a
context, much meaning when the purpose of a search is to hearing on the factual dispute as to the character of the search
retrieve a file for work-related reasons. Similarly, the concept of and neither was there any finding made as to the scope of the
probable cause has little meaning for a routine inventory search that was undertaken, the case was remanded to said court
conducted by public employers for the purpose of securing state for the determination of the justification for the search and
property. x x x To ensure the efficient and proper operation of the seizure, and evaluation of the reasonableness of both the
agency, therefore, public employers must be given wide latitude inception of the search and its scope.
to enter employee offices for work-related, noninvestigatory
reasons. In O’Connor the Court recognized that "special needs" authorize
warrantless searches involving public employees for work-related
We come to a similar conclusion for searches conducted pursuant reasons. The Court thus laid down a balancing test under which
to an investigation of work-related employee misconduct. Even government interests are weighed against the employee’s
when employers conduct an investigation, they have an interest reasonable expectation of privacy. This reasonableness test
substantially different from "the normal need for law implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant requirement,
enforcement." x x x Public employers have an interest in ensuring which are related to law enforcement.40
that their agencies operate in an effective and efficient manner,
38 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
O’Connor was applied in subsequent cases raising issues on privacy in the files downloaded from the Internet. Additionally,
employees’ privacy rights in the workplace. One of these cases we conclude that Simons’ Fourth Amendment rights were not
involved a government employer’s search of an office computer, violated by FBIS’ retrieval of Simons’ hard drive from his office.
United States v. Mark L. Simons41 where the defendant Simons,
an employee of a division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Simons did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard
was convicted of receiving and possessing materials containing to the record or fruits of his Internet use in light of the FBIS Internet
child pornography. Simons was provided with an office which he policy. The policy clearly stated that FBIS would "audit, inspect,
did not share with anyone, and a computer with Internet access. and/or monitor" employees’ use of the Internet, including all file
The agency had instituted a policy on computer use stating that transfers, all websites visited, and all e-mail messages, "as deemed
employees were to use the Internet for official government appropriate." x x x This policy placed employees on notice that
business only and that accessing unlawful material was they could not reasonably expect that their Internet activity
specifically prohibited. The policy also stated that users shall would be private. Therefore, regardless of whether Simons
understand that the agency will periodically audit, inspect, and/or subjectively believed that the files he transferred from the
monitor the user’s Internet access as deemed appropriate. CIA Internet were private, such a belief was not objectively
agents instructed its contractor for the management of the reasonable after FBIS notified him that it would be overseeing his
agency’s computer network, upon initial discovery of prohibited Internet use. x x x Accordingly, FBIS’ actions in remotely searching
internet activity originating from Simons’ computer, to conduct a and seizing the computer files Simons downloaded from the
remote monitoring and examination of Simons’ computer. After Internet did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
confirming that Simons had indeed downloaded pictures that
were pornographic in nature, all the files on the hard drive of
xxxx
Simon’s computer were copied from a remote work station. Days
later, the contractor’s representative finally entered Simon’s
office, removed the original hard drive on Simon’s computer, The burden is on Simons to prove that he had a legitimate
replaced it with a copy, and gave the original to the agency expectation of privacy in his office. x x x Here, Simons has shown
security officer. Thereafter, the agency secured warrants and that he had an office that he did not share. As noted above, the
searched Simons’ office in the evening when Simons was not operational realities of Simons’ workplace may have diminished
around. The search team copied the contents of Simons’ his legitimate privacy expectations. However, there is no
computer; computer diskettes found in Simons’ desk drawer; evidence in the record of any workplace practices, procedures, or
computer files stored on the zip drive or on zip drive diskettes; regulations that had such an effect. We therefore conclude that,
videotapes; and various documents, including personal on this record, Simons possessed a legitimate expectation of
correspondence. At his trial, Simons moved to suppress these privacy in his office.
evidence, arguing that the searches of his office and computer
violated his Fourth Amendment rights. After a hearing, the district xxxx
court denied the motion and Simons was found guilty as charged.
In the final analysis, this case involves an employee’s supervisor
Simons appealed his convictions. The US Supreme Court ruled entering the employee’s government office and retrieving a piece
that the searches of Simons’ computer and office did not violate of government equipment in which the employee had absolutely
his Fourth Amendment rights and the first search warrant was no expectation of privacy – equipment that the employer knew
valid. It held that the search remains valid under the O’Connor contained evidence of crimes committed by the employee in the
exception to the warrant requirement because evidence of the employee’s office. This situation may be contrasted with one in
crime was discovered in the course of an otherwise proper which the criminal acts of a government employee were
administrative inspection. Simons’ violation of the agency’s unrelated to his employment. Here, there was a conjunction of
Internet policy happened also to be a violation of criminal law; the conduct that violated the employer’s policy and the conduct
this does not mean that said employer lost the capacity and that violated the criminal law. We consider that FBIS’ intrusion
interests of an employer. The warrantless entry into Simons’ into Simons’ office to retrieve the hard drive is one in which a
office was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment standard reasonable employer might engage. x x x42 (Citations omitted;
announced in O’Connor because at the inception of the search, emphasis supplied.)
the employer had "reasonable grounds for suspecting" that the
hard drive would yield evidence of misconduct, as the employer This Court, in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs
was already aware that Simons had misused his Internet access Board43 which involved the constitutionality of a provision in R.A.
to download over a thousand pornographic images. The retrieval No. 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for
of the hard drive was reasonably related to the objective of the public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers
search, and the search was not excessively intrusive. Thus, while and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged
Simons had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office, he before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, have also
did not have such legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to recognized the fact that there may be such legitimate intrusion of
the files in his computer. privacy in the workplace.

x x x To establish a violation of his rights under the Fourth The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the
Amendment, Simons must first prove that he had a legitimate nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which
expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized. x effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the
x x And, in order to prove a legitimate expectation of privacy, Constitution, intrudes. In this case, the office or workplace serves
Simons must show that his subjective expectation of privacy is as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the
one that society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. employees and the reasonableness of drug testing requirement.
xxx The employees’ privacy interest in an office is to a large extent
circumscribed by the company’s work policies, the collective
xxxx bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and
the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to
x x x We conclude that the remote searches of Simons’ computer maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy
did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because, in light of expectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced;
the Internet policy, Simons lacked a legitimate expectation of
39 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. 3. Use of the Computer Resources is a privilege that
(Emphasis supplied.) may be revoked at any given time.

Applying the analysis and principles announced in O’Connor and xxxx

Simons to the case at bar, we now address the following
questions: (1) Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of No Expectation of Privacy
privacy in his office and computer files?; and (2) Was the search
authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the
4. No expectation of privacy. Users except the
hard drive on petitioner’s computer reasonable in its inception
Members of the Commission shall not have an
and scope?
expectation of privacy in anything they create, store,
send, or receive on the computer system.
In this inquiry, the relevant surrounding circumstances to
consider include "(1) the employee’s relationship to the item
The Head of the Office for Recruitment, Examination
seized; (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the
and Placement shall select and assign Users to handle
employee when it was seized; and (3) whether the employee took
the confidential examination data and processes.
actions to maintain his privacy in the item." These factors are
relevant to both the subjective and objective prongs of the
reasonableness inquiry, and we consider the two questions 5. Waiver of privacy rights. Users expressly waive any
together.44 Thus, where the employee used a password on his right to privacy in anything they create, store, send, or
computer, did not share his office with co-workers and kept the receive on the computer through the Internet or any
same locked, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy and any other computer network. Users understand that
search of that space and items located therein must comply with the CSC may use human or automated means to
the Fourth Amendment.45 monitor the use of its Computer Resources.

We answer the first in the negative. Petitioner failed to prove that 6. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. A computer
he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his resource is not a personal property or for the exclusive
office or government-issued computer which contained his use of a User to whom a memorandum of receipt (MR)
personal files. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate has been issued. It can be shared or operated by other
enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his users. However, he is accountable therefor and must
office was always locked and not open to other employees or insure its care and maintenance.
visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted
any means to prevent other employees from accessing his xxxx
computer files. On the contrary, he submits that being in the
public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV, he normally would have Passwords
visitors in his office like friends, associates and even unknown
people, whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him
seemed a trivial request. He described his office as "full of people, 12. Responsibility for passwords. Users shall be
his friends, unknown people" and that in the past 22 years he had responsible for safeguarding their passwords for access
been discharging his functions at the PALD, he is "personally to the computer system. Individual passwords shall not
assisting incoming clients, receiving documents, drafting cases on be printed, stored online, or given to others. Users shall
appeals, in charge of accomplishment report, Mamamayan Muna be responsible for all transactions made using their
Program, Public Sector Unionism, Correction of name, passwords. No User may access the computer system
accreditation of service, and hardly had anytime for himself with another User’s password or account.
alone, that in fact he stays in the office as a paying
customer."46 Under this scenario, it can hardly be deduced that 13. Passwords do not imply privacy. Use of passwords
petitioner had such expectation of privacy that society would to gain access to the computer system or to encode
recognize as reasonable. particular files or messages does not imply that Users
have an expectation of privacy in the material they
Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of allegation create or receive on the computer system. The Civil
or proof of the aforementioned factual circumstances, that Service Commission has global passwords that permit
petitioner had at least a subjective expectation of privacy in his access to all materials stored on its networked
computer as he claims, such is negated by the presence of policy computer system regardless of whether those
regulating the use of office computers, as in Simons. materials have been encoded with a particular User’s
password. Only members of the Commission shall
authorize the application of the said global passwords.
Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 "Computer Use Policy
(CUP)" explicitly provides:
x x x x47 (Emphasis supplied.)
POLICY
The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its
employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy
1. The Computer Resources are the property of the Civil in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office
Service Commission and may be used only for computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the
legitimate business purposes. computer resources using both automated or human means. This
implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that
2. Users shall be permitted access to Computer the computer resources were used only for such legitimate
Resources to assist them in the performance of their business purposes.
respective jobs.
One of the factors stated in O’Connor which are relevant in
determining whether an employee’s expectation of privacy in the
40 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
workplace is reasonable is the existence of a workplace privacy taken and examined. A formal administrative investigation
policy.48 In one case, the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit held ensued and later search warrants were secured by the police
that a state university employee has not shown that he had a department. The initial remote search of the hard drive of
reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files where the petitioner’s computer, as well as the subsequent warrantless
university’s computer policy, the computer user is informed not searches was held as valid under the O’Connor ruling that a public
to expect privacy if the university has a legitimate reason to employer can investigate work-related misconduct so long as any
conduct a search. The user is specifically told that computer files, search is justified at inception and is reasonably related in scope
including e-mail, can be searched when the university is to the circumstances that justified it in the first place.52
responding to a discovery request in the course of litigation.
Petitioner employee thus cannot claim a violation of Fourth Under the facts obtaining, the search conducted on petitioner’s
Amendment rights when university officials conducted a computer was justified at its inception and scope. We quote with
warrantless search of his computer for work-related materials.49 approval the CSC’s discussion on the reasonableness of its
actions, consistent as it were with the guidelines established by
As to the second point of inquiry on the reasonableness of the O’Connor:
search conducted on petitioner’s computer, we answer in the
affirmative. Even conceding for a moment that there is no such administrative
policy, there is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the
The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in search of Pollo’s computer has successfully passed the test of
connection with investigation of work-related misconduct reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as
prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to enunciated in the above-discussed American authorities. It bears
Chairperson David regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its capacity
the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is as a government employer and that it was undertaken in
supposedly "lawyering" for individuals with pending cases in the connection with an investigation involving a work-related
CSC. Chairperson David stated in her sworn affidavit: misconduct, one of the circumstances exempted from the
warrant requirement. At the inception of the search, a complaint
8. That prior to this, as early as 2006, the undersigned has was received recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO
received several text messages from unknown sources adverting No. IV was "lawyering" for parties having pending cases with the
to certain anomalies in Civil Service Commission Regional Office said regional office or in the Commission. The nature of the
IV (CSCRO IV) such as, staff working in another government imputation was serious, as it was grievously disturbing. If, indeed,
agency, "selling" cases and aiding parties with pending cases, all a CSC employee was found to be furtively engaged in the practice
done during office hours and involved the use of government of "lawyering" for parties with pending cases before the
properties; Commission would be a highly repugnant scenario, then such a
case would have shattering repercussions. It would undeniably
cast clouds of doubt upon the institutional integrity of the
9. That said text messages were not investigated for lack of any
Commission as a quasi-judicial agency, and in the process, render
verifiable leads and details sufficient to warrant an investigation;
it less effective in fulfilling its mandate as an impartial and
objective dispenser of administrative justice. It is settled that a
10. That the anonymous letter provided the lead and details as it court or an administrative tribunal must not only be actually
pinpointed the persons and divisions involved in the alleged impartial but must be seen to be so, otherwise the general public
irregularities happening in CSCRO IV; would not have any trust and confidence in it.

11. That in view of the seriousness of the allegations of Considering the damaging nature of the accusation, the
irregularities happening in CSCRO IV and its effect on the integrity Commission had to act fast, if only to arrest or limit any possible
of the Commission, I decided to form a team of Central Office adverse consequence or fall-out. Thus, on the same date that the
staff to back up the files in the computers of the Public Assistance complaint was received, a search was forthwith conducted
and Liaison Division (PALD) and Legal Division; involving the computer resources in the concerned regional
office. That it was the computers that were subjected to the search
x x x x50 was justified since these furnished the easiest means for an
employee to encode and store documents. Indeed, the computers
A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is would be a likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating
justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for evidence. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files,
suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button,
of work-related misconduct.51 Thus, in the 2004 case decided by necessitated drastic and immediate action. Pointedly, to impose
the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held that where a the need to comply with the probable cause requirement would
government agency’s computer use policy prohibited electronic invariably defeat the purpose of the wok-related investigation.
messages with pornographic content and in addition expressly
provided that employees do not have any personal privacy rights Worthy to mention, too, is the fact that the Commission effected
regarding their use of the agency information systems and the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner.
technology, the government employee had no legitimate Officials and some employees of the regional office, who
expectation of privacy as to the use and contents of his office happened to be in the vicinity, were on hand to observe the
computer, and therefore evidence found during warrantless process until its completion. In addition, the respondent himself
search of the computer was admissible in prosecution for child was duly notified, through text messaging, of the search and the
pornography. In that case, the defendant employee’s computer concomitant retrieval of files from his computer.
hard drive was first remotely examined by a computer
information technician after his supervisor received complaints All in all, the Commission is convinced that the warrantless search
that he was inaccessible and had copied and distributed non- done on computer assigned to Pollo was not, in any way, vitiated
work-related e-mail messages throughout the office. When the with unconstitutionality. It was a reasonable exercise of the
supervisor confirmed that defendant had used his computer to managerial prerogative of the Commission as an employer aimed
access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the express at ensuring its operational effectiveness and efficiency by going
policy of the agency, his computer tower and floppy disks were
41 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
after the work-related misfeasance of its employees. had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the office computer
Consequently, the evidence derived from the questioned search assigned to him.
are deemed admissible.53
Having determined that the personal files copied from the office
Petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy computer of petitioner are admissible in the administrative case
must necessarily fail. His other argument invoking the privacy of against him, we now proceed to the issue of whether the CSC was
communication and correspondence under Section 3(1), Article correct in finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and
III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable considering the dismissing him from the service.
recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the
privacy of employees in the government workplace under the Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial
aforecited authorities. We likewise find no merit in his contention agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only respect but even
that O’Connor and Simons are not relevant because the present finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.
case does not involve a criminal offense like child pornography. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a
As already mentioned, the search of petitioner’s computer was reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might
files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to conceivably opine otherwise.55
the investigation being conducted by CSC as government
employer of such misconduct subject of the anonymous
The CSC based its findings on evidence consisting of a substantial
complaint. This situation clearly falls under the exception to the
number of drafts of legal pleadings and documents stored in his
warrantless requirement in administrative searches defined in
office computer, as well as the sworn affidavits and testimonies
O’Connor.
of the witnesses it presented during the formal investigation.
According to the CSC, these documents were confirmed to be
The Court is not unaware of our decision in Anonymous Letter- similar or exactly the same content-wise with those on the case
Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, records of some cases pending either with CSCRO No. IV, CSC-NCR
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila54 involving a branch clerk or the Commission Proper. There were also substantially similar
(Atty. Morales) who was investigated on the basis of an copies of those pleadings filed with the CA and duly furnished the
anonymous letter alleging that he was consuming his working Commission. Further, the CSC found the explanation given by
hours filing and attending to personal cases, using office supplies, petitioner, to the effect that those files retrieved from his
equipment and utilities. The OCA conducted a spot investigation computer hard drive actually belonged to his lawyer friends
aided by NBI agents. The team was able to access Atty. Morales’ Estrellado and Solosa whom he allowed the use of his computer
personal computer and print two documents stored in its hard for drafting their pleadings in the cases they handle, as
drive, which turned out to be two pleadings, one filed in the CA implausible and doubtful under the circumstances. We hold that
and another in the RTC of Manila, both in the name of another the CSC’s factual finding regarding the authorship of the subject
lawyer. Atty. Morales’ computer was seized and taken in custody pleadings and misuse of the office computer is well-supported by
of the OCA but was later ordered released on his motion, but with the evidence on record, thus:
order to the MISO to first retrieve the files stored therein. The
OCA disagreed with the report of the Investigating Judge that
It is also striking to note that some of these documents were in
there was no evidence to support the charge against Atty.
the nature of pleadings responding to the orders, decisions or
Morales as no one from the OCC personnel who were interviewed
resolutions of these offices or directly in opposition to them such
would give a categorical and positive statement affirming the
as a petition for certiorari or a motion for reconsideration of CSC
charges against Atty. Morales, along with other court personnel
Resolution. This indicates that the author thereof knowingly and
also charged in the same case. The OCA recommended that Atty.
willingly participated in the promotion or advancement of the
Morales should be found guilty of gross misconduct. The Court En
interests of parties contrary or antagonistic to the Commission.
Banc held that while Atty. Morales may have fallen short of the
Worse, the appearance in one of the retrieved documents the
exacting standards required of every court employee, the Court
phrase, "Eric N. Estr[e]llado, Epal kulang ang bayad mo," lends
cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal computer
plausibility to an inference that the preparation or drafting of the
against him for it violated his constitutional right against
legal pleadings was pursued with less than a laudable motivation.
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court found no
Whoever was responsible for these documents was simply doing
evidence to support the claim of OCA that they were able to
the same for the money – a "legal mercenary" selling or purveying
obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of Atty. Morales, as
his expertise to the highest bidder, so to speak.
in fact the latter immediately filed an administrative case against
the persons who conducted the spot investigation, questioning
the validity of the investigation and specifically invoking his Inevitably, the fact that these documents were retrieved from the
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. And computer of Pollo raises the presumption that he was the author
as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved thereof. This is because he had a control of the said computer.
from the unduly confiscated personal computer of Atty. Morales, More significantly, one of the witnesses, Margarita Reyes,
to hold him administratively liable, the Court had no choice but categorically testified seeing a written copy of one of the
to dismiss the charges against him for insufficiency of evidence. pleadings found in the case records lying on the table of the
respondent. This was the Petition for Review in the case of
Estrellado addressed to the Court of Appeals. The said
The above case is to be distinguished from the case at bar
circumstances indubitably demonstrate that Pollo was secretly
because, unlike the former which involved a personal computer
undermining the interest of the Commission, his very own
of a court employee, the computer from which the personal files
employer.
of herein petitioner were retrieved is a government-issued
computer, hence government property the use of which the CSC
has absolute right to regulate and monitor. Such relationship of To deflect any culpability, Pollo would, however, want the
the petitioner with the item seized (office computer) and other Commission to believe that the documents were the personal
relevant factors and circumstances under American Fourth files of some of his friends, including one Attorney Ponciano
Amendment jurisprudence, notably the existence of CSC MO 10, Solosa, who incidentally served as his counsel of record during the
S. 2007 on Computer Use Policy, failed to establish that petitioner formal investigation of this case. In fact, Atty. Solosa himself
executed a sworn affidavit to this effect. Unfortunately, this
42 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
contention of the respondent was directly rebutted by the Considering that the CSC, as the disciplining authority for Dumlao,
prosecution witness, Reyes, who testified that during her entire filed the complaint, jurisdiction over Dumlao was validly acquired.
stay in the PALD, she never saw Atty. Solosa using the computer (Emphasis supplied.)
assigned to the respondent. Reyes more particularly stated that
she worked in close proximity with Pollo and would have known As to petitioner’s challenge on the validity of CSC OM 10, S. 2002
if Atty. Solosa, whom she personally knows, was using the (CUP), the same deserves scant consideration. The alleged
computer in question. Further, Atty. Solosa himself was never infirmity due to the said memorandum order having been issued
presented during the formal investigation to confirm his sworn solely by the CSC Chair and not the Commission as a collegial
statement such that the same constitutes self-serving evidence body, upon which the dissent of Commissioner Buenaflor is partly
unworthy of weight and credence. The same is true with the other anchored, was already explained by Chairperson David in her
supporting affidavits, which Pollo submitted. Reply to the Addendum to Commissioner Buenaflor’s previous
memo expressing his dissent to the actions and disposition of the
At any rate, even admitting for a moment the said contention of Commission in this case. According to Chairperson David, said
the respondent, it evinces the fact that he was unlawfully memorandum order was in fact exhaustively discussed, provision
authorizing private persons to use the computer assigned to him by provision in the January 23, 2002 Commission Meeting,
for official purpose, not only once but several times gauging by attended by her and former Commissioners Erestain, Jr. and
the number of pleadings, for ends not in conformity with the Valmores. Hence, the Commission En Banc at the time saw no
interests of the Commission. He was, in effect, acting as a need to issue a Resolution for the purpose and further because
principal by indispensable cooperation…Or at the very least, he the CUP being for internal use of the Commission, the practice
should be responsible for serious misconduct for repeatedly had been to issue a memorandum order.58 Moreover, being an
allowing CSC resources, that is, the computer and the electricity, administrative rule that is merely internal in nature, or which
to be utilized for purposes other than what they were officially regulates only the personnel of the CSC and not the public, the
intended. CUP need not be published prior to its effectivity.59

Further, the Commission cannot lend credence to the posturing In fine, no error or grave abuse of discretion was committed by
of the appellant that the line appearing in one of the documents, the CA in affirming the CSC’s ruling that petitioner is guilty of
"Eric N. Estrellado, Epal kulang ang bayad mo," was a private joke grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best
between the person alluded to therein, Eric N. Estrellado, and his interest of the service, and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The gravity
counsel, Atty. Solosa, and not indicative of anything more sinister. of these offenses justified the imposition on petitioner of the
The same is too preposterous to be believed. Why would such a ultimate penalty of dismissal with all its accessory penalties,
statement appear in a legal pleading stored in the computer pursuant to existing rules and regulations.
assigned to the respondent, unless he had something to do with
it?56 WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
Decision dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated February
Petitioner assails the CA in not ruling that the CSC should not have 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98224
entertained an anonymous complaint since Section 8 of CSC are AFFIRMED.
Resolution No. 99-1936 (URACC) requires a verified complaint:
With costs against the petitioner.
Rule II – Disciplinary Cases
SO ORDERED.
SEC. 8. Complaint. - A complaint against a civil service official or
employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases Associate Justice
initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the complaint need
not be under oath.

No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless there is

obvious truth or merit to the allegation therein or supported by
documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person
complained of may be required to comment.

xxxx

We need not belabor this point raised by petitioner. The

administrative complaint is deemed to have been initiated by the
CSC itself when Chairperson David, after a spot inspection and
search of the files stored in the hard drive of computers in the
two divisions adverted to in the anonymous letter -- as part of the
disciplining authority’s own fact-finding investigation and
information-gathering -- found a prima facie case against the
petitioner who was then directed to file his comment. As this
Court held in Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals57 --

Under Sections 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book V of E.O.

No. 292 and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint may be initiated against a
civil service officer or employee by the appropriate disciplining
authority, even without being subscribed and sworn to.
43 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
[G.R. No. 121087. August 26, 1999.] At this point, Lingan intervened and said to petitioner Navarro:
"Huwag namang ganyan, pumarito kami para magpa-blotter, I am
FELIPE NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and the here to mediate." 11 Petitioner Navarro replied: "Walang press,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. press, mag-sampu pa kayo." 12 He then turned to Sgt. Añonuevo
and told him to make of record the behavior of Jalbuena and
DECISION Lingan. 13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

This angered Lingan, who said: "O, di ilagay mo diyan." 14

MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner Navarro retorted: "Talagang ilalagay ko." 15 The two
then had a heated exchange. 16 Finally, Lingan said: "Masyado
kang abusado, alisin mo yang baril mo at magsuntukan na lang
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the tayo." 17 Petitioner Navarro replied: "Ah, ganoon?" 18
Court of Appeals, dated December 14, 1994, which affirmed the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Lucena City, dated As Lingan was about to turn away, petitioner Navarro hit him with
July 27, 1992, finding petitioner Felipe Navarro guilty beyond the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow. Lingan fell on the
reasonable doubt of homicide and sentencing him to ten (10) floor, blood flowing down his face. He tried to get up, but
years of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, petitioner Navarro gave him a fist blow on the forehead which
eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as floored him. 19
maximum, but increased the death indemnity awarded to the
heirs of the victim, Enrique "Ike" Lingan, from P30,000.00 to Petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and said: "Kita mo yan ha,
P50,000.00.chanrobles law library buhay kang testigo, si Ike Lingan ang naghamon." 20 He said to
Sgt. Añonuevo: "Ilagay mo diyan sa blotter, sa harap ni Alex Sioco
The information against petitioner alleged — at Dante Liquin, na si Ike Lingan ang naghamon." 21 He then
poked his gun at the right temple of Jalbuena and made him sign
That on or about the 4th day of February, 1990, in the nighttime, his name on the blotter. 22 Jalbuena could not affix his signature.
in the City of Lucena, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within His right hand was trembling and he simply wrote his name in
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being print. 23
then a member of the Lucena Integrated National Police, with
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Capt. Coronado, the station commander, called petitioner
feloniously assault one Ike Lingan inside the Lucena police Navarro to his office, while a policeman took Lingan to the
headquarters, where authorities are supposed to be engaged in Quezon Memorial Hospital. The station manager of DWTI, Boy
the discharge of their duties, by boxing the said Ike Lingan in the Casañada, arrived and, learning that Lingan had been taken to the
head with the butt of a gun and thereafter when the said victim hospital, proceeded there. But Lingan died from his injuries.
fell, by banging his head against the concrete pavement, as a 24chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
consequence of which said Ike Lingan suffered cerebral
concussion and shock which directly caused his death. Unknown to petitioner Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on
tape the exchange between petitioner and the deceased. 25 The
The evidence shows that, at around 8:40 in the evening of following is an excerpt from the tape recording:chanrob1es
February 4, 1990, Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique "Ike" Lingan, who virtual 1aw library
were reporters of the radio station DWTI in Lucena City, together
with one Mario Ilagan, went to the Entertainment City following Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
reports that it was showing nude dancers. After the three had
seated themselves at a table and ordered beer, a scantily clad Pare, you are abusing yourself.
dancer appeared on stage and began to perform a strip act. As
she removed her brassieres, Jalbuena brought out his camera and Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
took a picture. 2chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
Who is that abusing?
At that point, the floor manager, Dante Liquin, with a security
guard, Alex Sioco, approached Jalbuena and demanded to know Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
why he took a picture. 3 Jalbuena replied: "Wala kang pakialam,
because this is my job." 4 Sioco pushed Jalbuena towards the I’m here to mediate. Do not include me in the problem. I’m out of
table as he warned the latter that he would kill him. 5 When the problem.
Jalbuena saw that Sioco was about to pull out his gun, he ran out
of the joint followed by his companions. 6 x x x

Jalbuena and his companions went to the police station to report

the matter. Three of the policemen on duty, including petitioner Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Navarro, were having drinks in front of the police station, and
they asked Jalbuena and his companions to join them. Jalbuena Wala sa akin yan. Ang kaso lang . . . .
declined and went to the desk officer, Sgt. Añonuevo, to report
the incident. In a while, Liquin and Sioco arrived on a motorcycle. Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
7
Kalaban mo ang media, pare. Ako at si Stanley, dalawa kami. Okay.
Sioco and Liquin were met by petitioner Navarro who talked with Do not fight with me. I just came here to ayusin things. Do not say
them in a corner for around fifteen minutes. 8 Afterwards, bad things against me. I’m the number one loko sa media. I’m the
petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and, pushing him to the best media man. . . .
wall, said to him: "Putang ina, kinakalaban mo si Kabo Liquin, anak
yan ni Kabo Liquin, hindi mo ba kilala?" 9 Petitioner Navarro then Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
pulled out his firearm and cocked it, and, pressing it on the face
of Jalbuena, said, "Ano, uutasin na kita?" 10 Huwag tayong mag-lokohan sa ganyan! Huwag na tayong mag-
takotan! Huwag mong sabihing loko ka!
44 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
 responsible.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
The defense’s evidence which consists of outright denial could
I’m brave also. not under the circumstance overturn the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence.
Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This court finds that the prosecution witnesses, more particularly
Ay lalo na ako. Tahimik lang naman ako. Wala ka namang Stanley Jalbuena, lacked any motive to make false accusation,
masasabi sa akin dahil nag-tatrabaho lang ako ng ayon sa serbisyo distort the truth, testify falsehood or cause accusation of one who
ko.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red had neither brought him harm or injury.

Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Going over the evidence on record, the postmortem report issued
by Dra. Eva Yamamoto confirms the detailed account given by
You are challenging me and him. . . . Stanley Jalbuena on how Lingan sustained head injuries.

Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Said post-mortem report together with the testimony of Jalbuena
sufficiently belie the claim of the defense that the head injuries of
Ay walastik ka naman Ike! Pag may problema ka dito sinasabihan deceased Lingan were caused by the latter’s falling down on the
kita na may balita tayong maganda. Pambihira ka Ike. Huwag concrete pavement head first.chanrobles law library : red
mong sabihin na . . . Parang minomonopoly mo eh.
The Court of Appeals affirmed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We are far from being convinced by appellant’s aforesaid
Pati ako kalaban ninyo. disquisition. We have carefully evaluated the conflicting versions
of the incident as presented by both parties, and we find the trial
Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library court’s factual conclusions to have better and stronger
evidentiary support.
Talagang kalaban namin ang press. Lahat, hindi lang ikaw!
In the first place, the mere fact that Jalbuena was himself a victim
Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library of appellant’s aggression does not impair the probative worth of
his positive and logical account of the incident in question. In fact,
You are wrong. Bakit kalaban nyo ang press? far from proving his innocence, appellant’s unwarranted assault
upon Jalbuena, which the defense has virtually admitted, clearly
Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library betrays his violent character or disposition and his capacity to
harm others. Apparently, the same motivation that led him into
Pulis ito! Aba! assailing Jalbuena must have provoked him into also attacking
Lingan who had interceded for Jalbuena and humiliated him and
Lingan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library further challenged him to a fist fight.

Alisin mo ang baril mo! Alisin mo ang baril mo! Suntukan tayo, x x x
sige.

Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library On the other hand, appellant’s explanation as to how Lingan was
injured is too tenuous and illogical to be accepted. It is in fact
Mayabang ka ah! contradicted by the number, nature and location of Lingan’s
injuries as shown in the post-mortem report (Exh. D). According
(Sounds of a scuffle)chanrobles.com:cralaw:red to the defense, Lingan fell two times when he was outbalanced in
the course of boxing the appellant. And yet, Lingan suffered
Navarro:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library lacerated wounds in his left forehead, left eyebrow, between his
left and right eyebrows, and contusion in the right temporal
Hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako region of the head (Exh. E). Certainly, these injuries could not
nyan, testigo kayo. Alisin ko daw ang baril ko. Hinamon ako nyan. have resulted from Lingan’s accidental fall.chanrobles law library
Pare, ilagay mo diyan, hinamon ako sa harap ni Stanley. Testigo : red
kayo, hinamon ako. Pulis tayo eh. Puta, buti nga, suntok lang ang
inabot nyan. Sa harap ni Alex, ni Joe, ni Stanley, hinamon ako. Hence, this appeal. Petitioner Navarro contends:chanrob1es
Pare, hinamon ako, kinig nyo ha. Hinamon ako nyan. Sige, dalhin virtual 1aw library
nyo sa hospital yan.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE
Petitioner Felipe Navarro claims that it was the deceased who NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPLICABLE
tried to hit him twice, but he (petitioner) was able to duck both DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. ITS CONCLUSION IS A
times, and that Lingan was so drunk he fell on the floor twice, FINDING BASED ON SPECULATION, SURMISE OR CONJECTURE;
each time hitting his head on the concrete. 26 THE INFERENCE IT MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD OR
IMPOSSIBLE; IT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; ITS
In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution, the trial JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS; ITS
court stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library FINDING IS CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD; AND ITS
FINDING IS DEVOID OF SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.
After a thorough and in-depth evaluation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and the defense, this court finds that The appeal is without merit.
the evidence for the prosecution is the more credible, concrete
and sufficient to create that moral certainty in the mind of the First. Petitioner Navarro questions the credibility of the testimony
court that accused herein is criminally of Jalbuena on the ground that he was a biased witness, having a
45 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
grudge against him. The testimony of a witness who has an the worst of it.
interest in the conviction of the accused is not, for this reason
alone, unreliable. 27 Trial courts, which have the opportunity to Furthermore, Dr. Eva Yamamoto, who performed the autopsy on
observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice of a the body of Lingan, issued a medical certificate, 34 dated
witness while testifying, are competent to determine whether his February 5, 1990, containing the following findings:chanrob1es
or her testimony should be given credence. 28 In the instant case, virtual 1aw library
petitioner Navarro has not shown that the trial court erred in
according weight to the testimony of Jalbuena.chanrobles virtual Post Mortem Findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
lawlibrary
= Dried blood, forehead & face
Indeed, Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed by the voice recording
he had made. It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in = No blood oozed from the ears, nose & mouth
view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The answer
is in the affirmative. The law provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw = Swelling, 3 cm x 2 cm, temporal region, head, right
library
= Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1-2 in depth, lateral, eyebrow,
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being Left
authorized by all the parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other = Lacerated wound, 0.5 cm in length, superficial, between the left
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record & right eyebrow
such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie- = Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1 cm in depth, forehead, Left
talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary = Cyanosis of the tips of fingers & toes

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not CAUSE OF DEATH:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to
knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or = CEREBRAL CONCUSSION & SHOCK
any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication
or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date = BLOW ON THE HEAD
of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the
same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the Dr. Yamamoto testified:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other Q Give your opinion as to what was the possible cause of this
person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies findings number one, which is oozing of blood from the forehead?
thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by A It may be due to a blow on the forehead or it bumped to a hard
this prohibition. object, sir.

x x x Q Could a metal like a butt of a gun have caused this wound No.
1?

SECTION 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, A It is possible, sir.

contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or
any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained Q And in the alternative, could have it been caused by bumping
or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of on a concrete floor?
this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. A Possible, sir.

Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
recording of private communications. 29 Since the exchange
between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape What could have been the cause of the contusion and swelling
recording is not prohibited. under your findings No. 2 doctor?

Nor is there any question that it was duly authenticated. A voice WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1) that
he personally recorded the conversation; (2) that the tape played It may be caused by bumping to a hard object, sir.
in court was the one he recorded; and (3) that the voices on the
tape are those of the persons such are claimed to belong. 30 In Q Could a butt of a gun have caused it
the instant case, Jalbuena testified that he personally made the doctor?chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
voice recording; 31 that the tape played in court was the one he
recorded; 32 and that the speakers on the tape were petitioner A The swelling is big so it could have not been caused by a butt of
Navarro and Lingan. 33 A sufficient foundation was thus laid for a gun because the butt of a gun is small, sir.
the authentication of the tape presented by the
prosecution.chanrobles law library : red Q How about this findings No. 4?

Second. The voice recording made by Jalbuena established: (1) A By a bump or contact of the body to a hard object, sir.
that there was a heated exchange between petitioner Navarro
and Lingan on the placing in the police blotter of an entry against Q And findings No. 5 what could have caused it?
him and Jalbuena; and (2) that some form of violence occurred
involving petitioner Navarro and Lingan, with the latter getting A Same cause, sir.
46 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
Q This findings No. 6 what could have caused this wound? The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena that
petitioner Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of his pistol above
A Same thing, sir. the left eyebrow and struck him on the forehead with his
fist.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
Q How about this last finding, cyanosis of tips of fingers and toes,
what could have caused it doctor? Third. It is argued that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library immediately preceding the act should have been appreciated in
favor of petitioner Navarro. Provocation is defined to be any
It indicates there was cardiac failure, sir. unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable
of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. 36 The provocation must
FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library be sufficient and should immediately precede the act. 37 To be
sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the
In this same post mortem report and under the heading cause of wrong, which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. 38
death it states: Cause of Death: Cerebral concussion and Shock, And it must immediately precede the act so much so that there is
will you explain it? no interval between the provocation by the offended party and
the commission of the crime by the accused. 39
A Cerebral concussion means in Tagalog "naalog ang utak" or
jarring of the brain, sir. In the present case, the remarks of Lingan, which immediately
preceded the act of petitioner, constituted sufficient provocation.
Q What could have been the cause of jarring of the brain? In People v. Macaso, 40 we appreciated this mitigating
circumstance in favor of the accused, a policeman, who shot a
A It could have been caused by a blow of a hard object, sir. motorist after the latter had repeatedly taunted him with defiant
words. Hence, this mitigating circumstance should be considered
Q What about the shock, what could have caused it? in favor of petitioner Navarro.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

A It was due to peripheral circulatory failure, sir.chanrobles law Furthermore, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had
library no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
should also be appreciated in favor of petitioner. The frantic
Q Could any one of both caused the death of the victim? exclamations of petitioner Navarro after the scuffle that it was
Lingan who provoked him shows that he had no intent to kill the
A Yes, sir. latter. Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be taken into
account in determining the penalty that should be imposed on
Q Could cerebral concussion alone have caused the death of the petitioner Navarro. The allowance of this mitigating circumstance
deceased? is consistent with the rule that criminal liability shall be incurred
by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
A May be, sir. done be different from that which he intended. 41 In People v.
Castro, 42 the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit
Q How about shock? so grave a wrong as that committed was appreciated in favor of
the accused while finding him guilty of homicide.
A Yes, sir.
However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime
FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties should be appreciated against petitioner
Which of these two more likely to cause death? Navarro. The offense in this case was committed right in the
police station where policemen were discharging their public
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library functions. 43

Shock, sir. The crime committed as found by the trial court and the Court of
Appeals was homicide, for which the penalty under Art. 249 of
Q Please explain further the meaning of the medical term shock? the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. As there were two
mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance, the
A It is caused by peripheral circulatory failure as I have said earlier, penalty should be fixed in its minimum period. 44 Applying the
sir. Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner Navarro should be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which is
x x x within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision
mayor, and the maximum of which is reclusion temporal in its
minimum period. 45chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
The indemnity as increased by the Court of Appeals from
Could a bumping or pushing of one’s head against a concrete floor P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 is in accordance with current
have caused shock?chanrobles virtual lawlibrary jurisprudence. 46

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
with the modification that petitioner Felipe Navarro is hereby
Possible, sir. SENTENCED to suffer a prison term of 8 years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as
How about striking with a butt of a gun, could it cause shock? maximum.

A Possible, sir. 35 SO ORDERED.

47 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH
48 RULE 128 CASES EVID NCH