Professional Documents
Culture Documents
be a candidate; his statement that he only wanted the fiveday period promised by Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes; his
statements that he would leave by Monday if the second
envelope would be opened by Monday and Pagod na pagod
na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa
red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I dont want
any more of this its too painful. Im tired of the red tape, the
bureaucracy, the intrigue). I just want to clear my name, then
I will go. We noted that days before, petitioner had
repeatedly declared that he would not resign despite the
growing clamor for his resignation. The reason for the
meltdown is obvious - - - his will not to resign has wilted.
It is, however, argued that the Angara Diary is not the
diary of the petitioner, hence, non-binding on him. The
argument overlooks the doctrine of adoptive admission.
An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or
action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the
partys reaction as an admission of something stated or
implied by the other person.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif] Jones
explains that the basis for admissibility of admissions made
vicariously is that arising from the ratification or adoption
by the party of the statements which the other person had
made.[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif] To use the blunt language of
Mueller and Kirkpatrick, this process of attribution is not
mumbo jumbo but common sense.[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] In
the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to
dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from
him as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive
Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to
advise petitioner to consider the option of dignified exit or
resignation. Petitioner did not object to the suggested
option but simply said he could never leave the country.
Petitioners silence on this and other related suggestions can
be taken as an admission by him. [if !supportFootnotes][16][endif]
Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara
diary against him violated the rule on res inter alios acta.
The rule is expressed in section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court, viz: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
Again, petitioner errs in his contention. The res inter
alios acta rule has several exceptions. One of them is
provided in section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to
admissions by a co-partner or agent.
Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego
of the petitioner. He was the Little President. Indeed, he was
authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical
hours and days before he abandoned Malacaang
Palace. Thus, according to the Angara Diary, the petitioner
told Secretary Angara: Mula umpisa pa lang ng kampanya,
Ed, ikaw na lang pinakikinggan ko. At hanggang sa huli,
ikaw pa rin. (Since the start of the campaign, Ed, you have
been the only one Ive listened to. And now at the end, you
still are.) [if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] This statement of full trust was
made by the petitioner after Secretary Angara briefed
him about the progress of the first negotiation. True to
this trust, the petitioner had to ask Secretary Angara if he
would already leave Malacaang after taking their final lunch
on January 20, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. The Angara Diary
quotes the petitioner as saying to Secretary Angara: ed,
kailangan ko na bang umalis? (Do I have to leave now?) [if !
supportFootnotes][18][endif]
Secretary Angara told him to go and he did.
[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif]
MEDIALDEA, J.:
supportFootnotes][27][endif]
PROSECUTION.
C.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING
AS EVIDENCE THE FIREARMS DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT E AFTER THEY WERE DECLARED
INADMISSIBLE WITH FINALITY BY ANOTHER BRANCH
OF THE SAME COURT AND THE SAID EVIDENCE ARE
THE FRUITS OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.
D.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
MOTIONS TO QUASH FILED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT
Contrary to Third Paragraph of Sec. 1, P.D. 1866. (Records, BECAUSE THE SEPARATE CHARGE FOR SUBVERSION
p. 20)
AGAINST HIM ABSORBED THE CHARGE FOR ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN FURTHERANCE OF OR
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty INCIDENT TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME
to the crime charged (Records, p. 37). Trial on the merits OF SUBVERSION. (pp. 55-66, Rollo)
ensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered its
exhibits for admission. The counsel for accused-appellant The antecedent facts are set forth by the Solicitor General in
interposed his objections to the admissibility of the his Brief, as follows:
prosecution's evidence on grounds of its being hearsay,
immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine
warrant. On these bases, he, thereafter, manifested that he Constabulary officer connected with the 152nd PC Company
was not presenting any evidence for the accused (TSN, at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some companions were sent
December 28, 1989, p. 139). On January 17, 1990, the trial to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay
court rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan City. In said place, the
states:
group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba,
Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. When
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Basilio Damaso interrogated, the persons apprehended revealed that there
alias Bernardo/Bernie Mendoza alias Ka Dado guilty beyond was an underground safehouse at Gracia Village in
reasonable doubt of Violation of Presidential Decree Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After coordinating with the Station
Number 1866, and considering that the Violation is in Commander of Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house
furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime in Gracia Village. They found subversive documents, a
of subversion, pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3 of radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items (pp. 4, 6-7,
Presidential Decree Number 1866 hereby sentences the tsn, October 23, 1989).
accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to
pay the costs of the proceedings.
After the raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan
City, and put under surveillance the rented apartment of
The M14 Rifle bearing Serial Number 1249935 and live Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they
ammunition and all the articles and/or items seized on June earlier arrested. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a
19, 1988 in connection with this case and marked and visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that she worked
submitted in court as evidence are ordered confiscated and with Bernie Mendoza, herein appellant. She guided the
forfeited in favor of the government, the same to be turned group to the house rented by appellant. When they reached
over to the Philippine Constabulary Command at Lingayen, the house, the group found that it had already been vacated
Pangasinan.
by the occupants. Since Morados was hesitant to give the
new address of Bernie Mendoza, the group looked for the
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 31)
Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point
out the new house rented by appellant. The group again
Thus, this present recourse with the following assignment of required Morados to go with them. When they reached the
errors:
house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her
that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in
A.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw Morados
ACCUSED APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE she requested the group to go inside the house. Upon
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF entering the house, the group, as well as the Barangay
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF, Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled "Ang Bayan,"
OR INCIDENT TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE xerox copiers and a computer machine. They also found
CRIME OF SUBVERSION DESPITE THE WOEFULLY persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely,
INADEQUATE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Maries Calosa, Eric
PROSECUTION.
Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). The group requested
the persons in the house to allow them to look around.
B.
THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw
ACCUSED WHEN THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES books used for subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets
OF SUBVERSION WAS NOT PROVEN BY THE and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of
A
Captain Roberto Rosales and his assistant, First Lt.
Federico Castro. (ibid, pp. 54-55)
M/Sqt. Artemio Gomez
Q
That underground house, do you know who was the
principal occupant of that house?
We reverse.
xxx
xxx
xxx
A
During our conversation with the occupants, they
revealed that a certain Ka Bernie is the one occupying the
house, Bernie Mendoza alias Basilio Damaso.
Q
How about this Bernie Mendoza, who was the one
renting the house?
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence, like hearsay evidence
A
He was not around at that time, but according to Luz or evidence that violates the rule of res inter alios acta, or
(Tanciangco) who mentioned the name Bernie Mendoza (as) his failure to ask for the striking out of the same does not
the one who was renting the house and at the same time give such evidence any probative value. The lack of
claiming that it was Bernie Mendoza who owns the said objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible.
items. (TSN of October 31, 1989, p. 40)
But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to
xxx
xxx
xxx
or not has no probative value.
(L-45283-84, March 19, 1982, 112 SCRA 675, emphasis
Q
I am showing you another picture which we request supplied)
to be marked as Exhibit "K-2," tell us if it has any connection
to the house?
It is unfortunate that the prosecution failed to present as
witnesses the persons who knew the appellant as the lessee
A
The same house, sir.
and owner of the M-14 rifle. In this way, the appellant could
have exercised his constitutional right to confront the
Q
Now, this person who according to you allegedly witnesses and to cross-examine them for their truthfulness.
occupied the house at Bonuan Gueset, by the name of Likewise, the records do not show any other evidence which
Bernie Mendoza, in your capacity as a Military officer, did could have identified the appellant as the lessee of the
you find out the identity?
house and the owner of the subversive items. To give
probative value to these hearsay statements and convict the
A
I am not the proper (person) to tell the real identity of appellant on this basis alone would be to render his
Bernie de Guzman.
constitutional rights useless and without meaning.
Q
Can you tell the Honorable Court the proper person Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant
who could tell the true identity of Bernie Mendoza?
is the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not
prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to of the appellant at nighttime (Exh. J, p. 7, Records), does
comply with the requirements of a valid search and seizure not grant them the license to go inside his house. In Alih v.
proceedings.
Castro, We ruled that:
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
enshrined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 2). The
purpose of the law is to prevent violations of private security
in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the
sanctity of the home by officers of the law acting under
legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedy against
such usurpations when attempted (see Alvero v. Dizon, 76
Phil. 637, 646). However, such right is not absolute. There
are instances when a warrantless search and seizure
becomes valid, namely: (1) search incidental to an arrest;
(2) search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence
in plain view (Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, L-58889, July
31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267, 276). None of these exceptions is
present in this case.
The Solicitor General argues otherwise. He claims that the
group of Lt. Quijardo entered the appellant's house upon
invitation of Luz Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados,
helper of the appellant; that when Luz Tanciangco opened
one of the rooms, they saw a copier machine, computer, M14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions, radio set and more
subversive items; that technically speaking, there was no
search as the group was voluntarily shown the articles used
in subversion; that besides, a search may be validly
conducted without search warrant with the consent of the
person searched in this case, appellant's helper and Luz
Tanciangco allowed them to enter and to look around the
appellant's house; and that since the evidence seized was in
plain view of the authorities, the same may be seized
without a warrant.
A
When she opened the doors of the rooms that we
requested for, we immediately saw different kinds of books
of which we believed to be used for subversive orientation
We are not persuaded. The constitutional immunity from and the M-14 rifle.
unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal one,
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights Q
In what portion of the house did you find this M-14
are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in rifle which you mentioned?
his or her behalf (De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695). In
the case at bar, the records show that appellant was not in A
In the same room of which the subversive
his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his documents were placed.
alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter it (TSN,
October 31, 1989, p. 10). We Find no evidence that would Q
If this firearm would be shown to you would you be
establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the able to identify the same?
appellant's helper or if it was true that she was his helper,
that the appellant had given her authority to open his house A
Yes, sir.
in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if
Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this Q
I am showing to you a rifle bearing a serial number
evidence, the authorities' intrusion into the appellant's 1249985 which for purposes of identification, may we
dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the request your Honor, that this rifle be marked as Exhibit "D."
power to search and seize is necessary to the public
welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced COURT:
without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens,
for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance Mark it.
to justify indifference to the basic principles of government
(Rodriguez v. Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230, 235). As a FISCAL:
consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was
illegal. It would have been different if the situation here Q
Kindly examine the said firearm and tell the
demanded urgency which could have prompted the Honorable Court the relation of that firearm to the firearm
authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the record which according to you you found inside the room allegedly
is silent on this point. The fact that they came to the house occupied by one Bernie Mendoza?
The first Whereas clause of R.A. 1700 states that the CPP is
an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government, not
only by force and violence but also by deceit, subversion,
and other illegal means. This is a recognition that subversive
acts do not only constitute force and violence (contrary to
the arguments of private respondents), but may partake of
other forms as well. One may in fact be guilty of subversion
by authoring subversive materials, where force and violence
is neither necessary or indispensable.
Private respondents contended that the Court in Misolas v.
Panga impliedly ruled that if an accused is simultaneously
charged with violation of P.D. 1866 and subversion, the
doctrine of absorption of common crimes as applied in
rebellion would have found application therein. The
respondents relied on the opinion of this Court when it said:
the facts asserted therein. Thus, this case would have been
People v. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336 (1971);
decided in the same manner. The affidavit executed without
Doctrine: Affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial presenting the affiant for cross-examination is considered
proceeding as hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are hearsay.
placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
FACTS: Silvino Daria and his wife Susana Tumalip were in
their house on December 23 1966. Daria was making rope
while Tumalip was applying candle wax to a flat iron. Cecilia
Bernal, their niece and neighbour, was alarmed by the
barking of dogs. When she peeped through a crack in the
wall of her house, she saw appellants Juan Brioso and
Mariano Taeza walking in the direction of the spouses
house, with Brioso carrying a long gun and Taeza, a short
weapon. She testified that she saw appellants point the gun
at the bamboo wall of the house and fired two shots.
Tumalip testified that right after Daria was shot, she rushed
to his side and he told her it was Brioso and Taeza who shot
him. He died one hour later. After a few days, Tumalip and
Bernal executed affidavits naming herein appellants as the
killers.
For their defense, Briosos alibi was that during that day, he
was with his cousin, Flores, milling sugar the entire day.
Flores was presented to corroborate Briosos alibi, but their
testimonies varied. Taezas alibi, was that he was playing his
guitar at the clinic with Antonio, son of the deceased, along
with some other companions, around the time the shooting
happened. This was corroborated by the affidavit of Antonio.
It must be noted, however, Antonios affidavit did not contain
the seal of the Fiscals office. Neither was he presented as a ISSUE:
witness during trial. The trial court convicted the appellants 1. Whether Judge Cusi erred in not allowing the witness to
for the murder of Daria.
mention all the names of those names by Puesca as his
co0conspirators on the ground of hearsay? YES.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the court was correct in relying on the RATIO: The testimony of a witness regarding a statement
testimonies of Bernal and Tumalip? YES.
made by another person is hearsay and is inadmissible if
2. Whether the court was correct in not admitting the offered to prove the truth of the facts stated therein.
affidavit of Antonio for being hearsay? YES.
However, such may be admitted if intended only to establish
the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such
RATIO: The testimony of Bernal was corroborated by the statement.
declaration of the victim himself, who told his wife that it was
Brioso and Taeza who shot him. The declaration is In the present case, the purpose of the prosecuting officer
admissible under the rule on ante-mortem statements. as manifested by him, in nothing more than to establish the
Judging from the nature and extent of Darias wounds, he fact that the accused Puesca mentioned the names of those
must have realized the seriousness of his condition, and it who conspired with him to commit the offense charged,
can be safely inferred that he made such statements under without claiming that Puescas statement would be
the consciousness of an impending death.
competent and admissible to prove that the persons named
really and actually conspired with Puesca. For this limited
Antonios affidavit was properly rejected as hearsay purpose, the question propounded should have been
evidence. The said affidavit was never identified by the allowed.
supposed affiant and there was no opportunity for
prosecution to cross-examine him because he was not ANALYSIS
presented during trial. As stated in the case of People v. Under the proposed rules on evidence, this case would have
Mariquina, affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial been decided in the same manner. Hearsay evidence is
proceeding as hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts stated therein,
placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
however, jurisprudence allows such for the limited purpose
of showing the fact that the statements were made.
ANALYSIS
Under Rule 130, Sec 38 of the proposed rules on evidence
a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of