Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. THE FACTS YES, the judge properly lifted the search warrants he
issued earlier.
Petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation sought the
assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in The lower court lifted the three (3) questioned search
connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Petitioner warrants in the absence of probable cause that the private
alleged that certain videotape outlets in Metro Manila are respondents violated P.D. 49. NBI agents who acted as
engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted witnesses during the application for search warrant did not have
films in violation of PD No. 49 (the old Intellectual Property personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony,
Law). which was the alleged commission of the offense of piracy by
the private respondents. Only the petitioner’s counsel who was
The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the also a witness during the application stated that he had personal
outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private
(3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes
owned by the private respondents. The lower court issued the belonging to the petitioner. The lower court lifted the warrants,
desired search warrants. The NBI, accompanied by the declaring that the testimony of petitioner’s counsel did not have
petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items much credence because the master tapes of the allegedly pirated
described in the three warrants. tapes were not shown to the court during the application.
Private respondents later filed a motion to lift the search The presentation of the master tapes of the
warrants and release the seized properties, which was granted by copyrighted films, from which the pirated films were
the lower court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search
denied by the lower court. The CA affirmed the trial court. warrants against those who have in their possession the
pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the
II. THE ISSUE presentation of the master tapes at the time of application
may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary
Did the judge properly lift the search warrants he issued in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable
earlier? cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is
not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or
III. THE RULING
copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes
that it owns.
On April 15, 1991, around 8:00 in the evening, Batin the Ratio:
household boy, went to the store of his employer to inform him The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our
that the dinner is ready. Upon entering the store Batin saw the fundamental law finds no application in this case. This right, as
appellant with a bolo fleeing the store while his employer his put by Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United States x x x is a
laying in the floor bathing in his own blood. prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to
Rondon on the other hand was on his way to store to buy extort communications from him x x x.
fertilizer on his field when he saw the appellant rushing out of It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from
the store with a blood-stained bolo. the [accused]s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt.
Batin immediately went out of the store to seek help. Outside It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence
the store, he met Rondon. Wherein they went to residence of sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but
the victim to inform them of the tragic incident. When they an object evidence
went back to the store they noticed that the store’s drawer was Infractions thereof render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
opened and the victim’s wallet was stolen from his Pocket. confession or admission made during custodial investigation.
When the appellant was place under custody, it was discovered The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are
that he possesses the wallet of the victim together with its relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law
content such as Malakis residence certificate, his identification or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the
card and a bunch of keys course of custodial investigation. Concededly, appellant was
not informed of his right to remain silent and to have his own
As a defense, the appellant argued that such it was a violation counsel by the investigating policemen during the custodial
of his constitutional right against self-incrimination hence, the investigation. Neither did he execute a written waiver of these
wallet and its contents were in admissible. rights in accordance with the constitutional prescriptions.
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty hence, the appeal. Nevertheless, these constitutional short-cuts do not affect the
admissibility of Malakis wallet, identification card, residence
certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing other facts
relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is admissible to
establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from
Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card,
residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on
the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet
really belongs to Malaki.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. April 1987, Jumamoy avers that he took a boat, the M/V
LUCIANO JUMAMOY Y AÑORA, alias "JUNIOR", Sweet Roro, for Manila.
accused-appellant. 5. The accused did not, however, present Feliciano Cenita as a
G.R. No. 101584. April 7, 1993. witness despite his (accused's) repeated manifestation of his
DAVIDE, JR., J intention to do so and the court's liberality in granting his
request for postponement for the said purpose. Instead, "out
FACTS: of the blue, the accused . . . presented one Ramon Micutuan
. . . to corroborate his claim that in the evening of April 1,
1. Two (2) separate informations for "Murder" and "Qualified 1987, he was in Cebu City.
Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions (sic)" were 6. After trial, the court a quo promulgated its judgment finding
filed against accused Luciano Jumamoy. the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
2. Appellant Luciano Jumamoy and the victim Rolando Miel charged.
were once friends and belonged to the same 'barkada' until 7. One of the assigned errors is: “(T)he firearm alleged to have
sometime in 1970 when the former was stabbed by the latter been used by the accused in killing the victim was not
on his left forearm. presented in court during the trial. Its caliber and make was
3. In the evening of April 1, 1987, the victim and his younger (sic) never established by sufficient evidence, so that there is
brother Edgar, together with three other companions, went no basis to convict the accused for illegal (sic) possession of
to the Cultural Center of Inabanga, Bohol, where a 'disco' firearm."
dance was being held. Upon reaching the Center, the victim
and his companions joined three other members of their ISSUE:
'barkada' watching the disco outside. All of a sudden Whether or not it was indispensable for the prosecution to
appellant appeared in front obliquely to the right of the introduce and offer in evidence the firearm which was used in
victim and fired three (3) successive shots at the latter. the killing of the victim.
However, on his way to escape, appellant passed by the
victim's brother Edgardo and a companion. When appellant HELD:
got near the two, the former poked his gun at the victim's
brother, and uttered, 'Unsa, laban ka?' ('What now, are you No.
taking sides?').
4. The trial court disregarded the accused's defense of alibi. The Nor can We agree with the accused that it was indispensable for
latter testified that he had left Inabanga, Bohol for Cebu City the prosecution to introduce and offer in evidence the firearm
on 29 March 1987 to look for employment. He recounts that which was used in the killing of the victim. There is no law or
he stayed in the house of a friend, Feliciano Cenita, in Pasil, rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do so; there
Cebu City from 1 April to 4 April 1987. In the evening of 4 is also no law which prescribes that a ballistics examination be
conducted to determine the source and trajectory of the bullets.
For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes
by proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed
and that the accused is the author thereof. The production of the
weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition
sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden for the weapon
may not have been recovered at all from the assailant. If the rule
were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals would
go scot-free and much injustice would be caused to the victims
of crimes, their families and society. In the instant case, it was
established with moral certainty that the accused attacked,
assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel with an unlicensed
firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot
wounds which caused his death. Such proof was all that was
needed for the conviction of the accused.
DISPOSITIVE:
RATIO:
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself.
Respondent Miguel Tan was doing business under the Ruling: Yes
name and style of Manila Mandarin Marketing and is Under the civil code the manner of which a contract of
engaged in the business of selling electrical materials. sale is perfected is when there is a meeting of the mind
Petitioner MMC ordered various electrical materials upon the thing which is the object of the contract and
from Respondent, from which the former agreed to pay upon the price.
within 30 days from delivery with interest. The purchase order constitute accepted offer when
MMC made partial payment but defaulted eventually. respondent supplied the electrical materials to the
Respondent filed a collections suit against the petitioner petitioner. Petitioner cannot evade its obligation by
with the RTC claiming for lack of consent to the perfected contract of
MMC offered as its sole witness its accountant Rainier sale. The invoices furnished the detail of the
Ibarrola, that absence of stamp marks on the invoices transaction.
and purchase order negated receipt of the said The best evidence rules only applies if the contents of
document by MMC’s representatives. the writing are directly in issue but where the existence
Respondent presented his sales representative to testify of the writing or its general purport is all that is the
that he delivered the originals of the invoices and issue, secondary evidence may be introduced as proof.
purchase order to MMC’s accounting department and Petitioner did not deny the contents of the invoice and
showed the customer’s acknowledgement receipts. purchase order, its lone contention was that respondent
As Alleged by the Petitioner that the Unauthenticated did not submit the original copies to facilitate the
Photocopies of Invoice and Purchase order did not payment.
satisfy the Best Evidence Rule, which requires the Photocopies of the documents were admissible in
production of the original writing in court. evidence to prove the contract between the parties.
RTC ruled in favor of the Respondent. Petition is Denied, Ruling of the RTC is affirmed.
CA Affirmed
Edsa Shangri-la Hotel v. BF Corp. (G.R. No. 145842, prom. Respondent BF, on the other hand, avers having complied with
June 27, 2008) the laying- the-basis requirement. Defending the action of the
courts below in admitting into evidence the photocopies of the
documents aforementioned, BF explained that it could not
Facts: present the original of the documents since they were in the
This is a collection case for a sum of money owed by Edsa possession of ESHRI which refused to hand them over to BF
Shangri-la to BF Corp. for the construction of its building despite requests.
roject. From May 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, BF submitted a
total of 19 progress billings following the procedure agreed
upon. Based on Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13, ESHRI paid BF
PhP 86,501,834.05.7 According to BF, however, ESHRI, for Issue:
Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19, did not re-measure the work Whether the admission of secondary evidence (the photocopies
done, did not prepare the Progress Payment Certificates, let of progress billings) was proper.
alone remit payment for the inclusive periods covered. In this
regard, BF claimed having been misled into working
continuously on the project by ESHRI which gave the
assurance about the Progress Payment Certificates already Held:
being processed. After several futile attempts to collect the Yes. We agree with BF. The only actual rule that the term "best
unpaid billings, BF filed, on July 26, 1993, before the RTC a evidence" denotes is the rule requiring that the original of
suit for a sum of money and damages. In its defense, ESHRI writing must, as a general proposition, be produced and
claimed having overpaid BF for Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13 secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible except
and, by way of counterclaim with damages, asked that BF be where the original cannot be had. Rule 130, Section 3 of the
ordered to refund the excess payments. ESHRI also charged BF Rules of Court enunciates the best evidence rule: SEC. 3.
with incurring delay and turning up with inferior work Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the
accomplishment. Petitioners fault the CA, and necessarily the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
trial court, on the matter of the admission in evidence of the shall be admissible other than the original document itself,
photocopies of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 and the except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been
complementing PMIs and the WVOs. According to petitioners, lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
BF, before being allowed to adduce in evidence the faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the
photocopies adverted to, ought to have laid the basis for the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
presentation of the photocopies as secondary evidence, evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
conformably to the best evidence rule. reasonable notice; (Emphasis added.) Complementing the
above provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads: SEC. 6.
When original document is in adverse party's custody or know if they have brought the originals and whether they will
control. - If the document is in the custody or under control of present the originals in court, Your Honor. (Emphasis added.)
the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. ATTY. AUTEA: We have already informed our client about
If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, the situation, your Honor, that it has been claimed by plaintiff
he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be that some of the originals are in their possession and our client
presented as in the case of loss. Secondary evidence of the assured that, they will try to check. Unfortunately, we have not
contents of a written instrument or document refers to evidence heard from our client, Your Honor. Four factual premises are
other than the original instrument or document itself. A party readily deducible from the above exchanges, to wit: (1) the
may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing existence of the original documents which ESHRI had
not only when the original is lost or destroyed, but also when it possession of; (2) a request was made on ESHRI to produce the
is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. In documents; (3) ESHRI was afforded sufficient time to produce
either instance, however, certain explanations must be given them; and (4) ESHRI was not inclined to produce them.
before a party can resort to secondary evidence. In our view, Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the
the trial court correctly allowed the presentation of the exception under Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130. In other words, the
photocopied documents in question as secondary evidence. conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of
Any suggestion that BF failed to lay the required basis for the photocopies of the original document as secondary
presenting the photocopies of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 evidence have been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the
instead of their originals has to be dismissed. original document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof of
The stenographic notes of the following exchanges between the cause of the original document's unavailability; and (3) the
Atty. Andres and Atty. Autea, counsel for BF and ESHRI, offeror is in good faith.
respectively, reveal that BF had complied with the
requirements: While perhaps not on all fours because it involved a check,
what the Court said in Magdayao v. People, is very much apt,
ATTY. ANDRES: During the previous hearing of this case, thus: To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when
your Honor, likewise, the witness testified that certain exhibits the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the
namely, the Progress Payment Certificates and the Progress adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that the adverse
Billings the originals of these documents were transmitted to party must be given reasonable notice, that he fails or refuses to
ESHRI, all the originals are in the possession of ESHRI since produce the same in court and that the offeror offers
these are internal documents and I am referring specifically to satisfactory proof of its existence.
the Progress Payment Certificates. We requested your Honor, The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody
that in order that plaintiff [BF] be allowed to present secondary or control of the party against whom it is offered does not
original, that opposing counsel first be given opportunity to warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must
present the originals which are in their possession. May we prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best
evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the
document. The notice may be in the form of a motion for the
production of the original or made in open court in the
presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum,
provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient
time to produce the same. When such party has the original of
the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or
refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.
Borje v. Sandiganbayan
GR L-55436 In fairness to the accused, We are constrained to include
25 Nov 1983 hereunder the more detailed statement of facts submitted by him
J. Guerrero in his Brief:
FACTS: NICASIO BORJE was charged with the crime of The Province of La Union undertook as one of its
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT. The accused- projects the program known as the Gulayan sa
appellant pleaded not guilty. Since there is no direct proof Kalusugan and Masagana '99 Program, the
showing that accused-appellant, being then the Provincial Plant implementation of which became a joint program
Industry Officer with many subordinate employees and of its Bureau of Plant Industry and its Bureau of
personnel under him engaged in agricultural field work and Agricultural Extension. Government employees
assigned in the rural areas like the complainant Rodrigo detailed as production technicians in the Gulayan
Ducusin, had personally and actually falsified the public Program received incentive allowances from the
documents in question which under normal office procedures NFAC during the covered period. Their detail as
pass through numerous hands at several government offices for production technicians of the said program was
typing, attestations, funding, accounting, and payment of the effected only by a special order emanating from
check for P225.00, the legal issue thus raised merits Our careful the Bureau of Plant Industry Door; and before the
consideration and resolution. employee received his incentive pay, he was
required to prepare his Daffy Time Record for the
The decision appealed from recites the evidence for the particular month and submit a Certification
government as follows: attesting to the fact that he was detailed to the
The gist of the evidence of the prosecution, program.
which consist of the testimonies of Ducusin,
Edgardo Olivares, 43 years old, married, In the case-at-bar, complainant Rodrigo Ducusin,
agronomist and Provincial Plant Officer, Manuel an employee of the Bureau of Plant Industry, was
Varquez, 45 years old, married and Regional detailed to the program from February 2,1975 up
Director and Remedios Lorenzo, 47 years old, to December 1977, his assignment of work being
married and Cashier, all of the Bureau of Plant contained in the NFAC Order captioned 'Detail
Industry in San Fernando, La Union, shows that and Designation of Personnel to NFAC, in
Ducusin was employed as Plant Pest Officer with connection with the Gulayan Program where his
the Bureau of Plant Industry stationed in San name appeared.
Fernando, La Union from February 2, 1975 up to
his resignation on April 30, 1978.
Making it appear that he was surprised to learn complainant admitted in cross-examination that he believes that
that he was supposed to receive his NFAC Borje instigated said two criminal cases against him.
incentive pay for the months of January,
February and March 1977 because he was not The Sandiganbayan in its decision formulated two issues
entitled thereto as he was not anymore connected determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused, to wit: (1)
with the Gulayan Program; and falsely making it Whether or not the a) Time Book and Payroll, b) the
appear that some person other than himself certification, and c) the Daily Time Records in support of said
received his incentive pay by allegedly forging payroll were falsified; and (2) If they were, the liability of the
his signature on the Daily Time Records, the accused, if any. The accused- appellant was found guilty by
Payroll and the Certification required and respondent court.
submitted — complainant Rodrigo Ducusin
caused to be filled a complaint against the ISSUES: Whether the accused is guilty of falsification of public
petitioner, Nicasio Borje, supervising agronomist document
of the Bureau of Plant Industry, before the
Tanodbayan. HELD: NO. On the face of the above documentary evidence,
the liability of petitioner as head of the office who had signed
Accused-appellant contends that complainant Ducusin was paid the certification and verification printed thereon must be limited
his incentive pay for the months of January to March, 1977 in to the contents of said verification and certification for which he
the total sum of P225.00 as Ducusin was included in the payroll does not necessarily incur criminal responsibility if the entries,
since he has worked with the Program as shown by the Special data or statements certified and verified turn out not to be true in
Order. He confirms substantially the official procedure in the which case the employee or personnel making the entries, data
preparation of the payroll and subsequent payment of the or statements as to his services and attendance is solely and
incentive pay to the production technicians as described by separately responsible therefor. In the instant case, since there is
witness Remedios Lorenzo, disbursing officer and cashier for the Special Order No. 172 of Executive Director Domingo
the BPI office in San Fernando, La Union. However, he Panganiban, concurrently BPI Director, marked Exh. 6, "Detail
vigorously denies having received the payroll and the and Designation of BPI personnel to NFAC in connection with
corresponding checks from witness Lorenzo as his participation the Masagana-99 Program effective January to December,
in the preparation of the said payroll ended with his signing 1977" listing complainant for the assignment and detail, the
thereof after which the payroll goes to the disbursing officer for inclusion of Ducusin's name in the payroll was not irregular.
the preparation and issuance of the checks to the payees. Besides, the payroll is prepared by the Budget Office based on
the Special Order and not by the petitioner's office.
Accused-appellant contends that the instant case against him
was initiated by Ducusin to get even with the petitioner as the
According to complainant Ducusin, he was no longer connected We also reject respondent court's reliance on the presumption
with the Masagana Program during the period of January to that as possessor of the document, the accused is presumed to be
March 1977 because his assignment thereto had been the author of the falsification. In the first place, the factual basis
terminated. But he was asked this question by the which is the Lorenzo testimony which We have reviewed as
Sandiganbayan, thus: doubtful and variable, cannot be credited. Petitioner has denied
Q — What evidence do you have that you were removed vigorously the testimony of Lorenzo that he received the payroll
in 1977 and you were no longer performing your duties as and the checks from her. He said that his participation in the
technician? preparation of the payroll ended with his signing thereof after
A — It is only verbal. which the payroll goes to the Disbursing Officer for the
preparation and issuance of the checks to the payees at which
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual time the payee affix their signatures on the payroll, which is
official procedure, a written special order issued by a substantially corroborated by the original testimony of the
government office is cancelled, amended or modified only by witness Lorenzo during the reinvestigation of the case before the
another written special order, not only for purposes of record on Tanodbayan.
file but also to prevent conflict and confusion in government
operations. Moreover, under the best evidence rule, Section 2, In the second place, Exhibit "A" appears to be also signed by ten
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the supposed verbal order cannot (10) other production technicians fisted in the payroll, besides
prevail over the written Special Order. complainant Ducusin. It is initialled by three (3) personnel in the
Respondent Sandiganbayan, however, justified the conviction of Accounting Services Unit and further signed by the Regional
the accused on the basis of the testimony of witness Remedios Accountant and for the Regional Director. All of these persons
Lorenzo, Regional Disbursing Officer and Cashier, to the effect were at one time or another in possession of the document, all of
that she delivered the payroll and checks to petitioner accused- them had the same opportunity impliedly imputed to the
appellant, relying further on the presumption that as possessor accused, The payroll must have been carried and passed by
of the document, accused-appellant is presumed to have falsified messengers and other employees from one office to another,
it. from one desk to another for purposes of typing, funding,
initialling, verification, certification, accounting, recording,
But reviewing the testimony of witness Lorenzo, the records drawing of the check and finally, issuing of the check. In Our
disclose that her original testimony at the reinvestigation of the view, the respondent court's reliance on the presumption which
case before the Tanodbayan was favorable to the accused, saying is only presumptive, is misplaced and unwarranted, there being
that she delivered the payroll and the checks to the complainant no sufficient reason to apply the same.
Ducusin, even Identifying the genuine signature of Ducusin on
the payroll. The defense contends that the prosecution, having presented
xerox copies only of the falsified documents, Exhs. "D" and "C",
fatted to prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged, citing the
case of U.S. vs. Gregorio: