REFERENCE TO MEMORANDUM

FIGUERAS v. SERRANO Axn vs the estate of the deceased to collect the balance of profl fees for Medical Svcs rendered to deceased FACTS: 1. Dr Figueras filed a complaint against the estate of Leandro Serrano to recover compensation for services rendered (medical attendance) to deceased (he is also the doctor of Primitiva, daughter of Leandro) 2. Figueras alleged that Leandro promised to pay for his trips to the town of Cabugao at the rate of P4/km (Note: Dr lived in Vigan so he had to take many trips to Cabugao, abt 27 kims away, to attend to the Serranos)

it also appears that the plaintiff who made the memoranda noted therein did not even testify concerning them. The appellee alleges that said entries are corroborated by the witness Florendo, Formoso, Figueras and Arcebal, the first three of whom, chauffeurs who successively took the plaintiff to Cabugao, among themselves fixed the total number of trips to Cabugao at about one hundred, and Arcebal testified that at the time in question, he saw the plaintiff stop in front of the municipal building of Cabugao two or three times a week, going in the direction of Leandro Serrano's house. The number of times testified to by these witnesses, is, as it could not otherwise be as inferred from their own testimony, mere conjecture, without sufficient assurance of approximation, much less exactness. What these witnesses definitely established and wherein they corroborate the notebooks Exhibits Q and R, is that the plaintiff made trips to Cabugao, a fact admitted by the defendant. But as to the number of said trips, which is the point in question, the testimony of these witnesses, with all its uncertainty on this point, cannot be considered as either direct or corroborative evidence. Defendant's evidence Exhibits 6, 7, 9 and 10, identified by Pedro Suero and Simeon Serrano, the plaintiff made twenty-six medical visits to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao, and ninety in Vigan. it appears from the testimony of Pedro Suero, that he, as former clerk to Leandro Serrano, was enjoined to note down in Exhibits 6 and 7, which are Bristol Almanacs for the years 1919 and 1920, the name of Gregorio Figueras, whenever said physician paid a professional visit to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao that he used to record plaintiff's medical visits to witness' sister, Primitiva Serrano, in Vigan, in the almanacs Exhibits 9 and 10 with the initial G and the letters "a.m." or "p.m." according as they were made in the morning or afternoon. Unlike the entries in Exhibits Q and R, those of Exhibits 6, 7, 9 and 10, are competent evidence, because,

3.

4.

The principal evidence adduced to prove the promise is a letter (Exh C), w/c is alleged to be addressed to Figueras and signed by Leandro. But defendant assails the authenticity of this letter and the signature at the bottom1. Crt also noticed changes and erasures w/c have not been satisfactorily explained. As to the signature, a comparison of the signature in Exh C and Exh J would reveal a remarkable resemblance- almost identical, in point of size and contour. So Crt doubts the genuineness of these pcs of evid considered the promise as not having been proven RELEVANT TO OUR LESSON: Exhs Q & R (Entries in Books of Account) a. While witnesses Parto and Florendo testified that they recognize the writing in said notebooks as Figuera, there is no proof that the notes in these exhs were written w/ the knowledge and consent, or even in the presence, of Leandro b. Neither does it appear that such notes were made at the time of the visits and professional services referred to therein or that they were written about that time c. Appearance of the writing in these books does not show that such notes were made therein on different occasions and at different periods of time, considering the noticeable uniformity of the handwriting and of the color of the ink used in Exh Q in almost all the entries, notwithstanding the fact that these entries cover a period of over one year

ISSUE: WON the entries in the books of account are admissible to determine the number of visits made by the plaintiff or that of the times he rendered professional services. HELD: NO RATIO:

in addition to being sufficiently identified by the persons who made them at the time of the visits,

It is absolutely necessary for the admission of such entries to prove that they were made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate. Once this is proven they may be admitted to corroborate the testimony of the person who made them. Written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate are sometimes admitted in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the person by whom they were made. (22 C.J., 869.) Present Case: Exhs Q and R do not meet the requirement contemporaneous, as to being

their appearance, details, and the fact that they were made at the time of the visits so recorded, = competent corroborative evidence under the rule CONCLUSION of Crt: the number of visits proven in these proceedings is 26 in Cabugao and 90 in Vigan, and the evidence shows that the plaintiff is entitled to receive P25 for each visit to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao and P2 for each visit to her in Vigan, or a sum total of P830, as professional fees. It has not been sufficiently proven that these amounts do not include the fees for the treatment given on such visits, nor that the reasonable price of electrical treatments, injections and eye treatments (which in themselves are not sufficiently established) is P15 for each electrical treatment, P5 for each injection, and P2 for each eye treatment. It does not appear sufficiently established that the plaintiff rendered medical service to Leandro Serrano.

Crt noticed that Exh C is, as to the context, very similar to the typewritten character of Exh 2, which is a letter written by the plaintiffs brother. Careful examination of Exh C reveals some details w/c bear out the presumption that it was written on the same typewriter as Exh 2

MALCOLM, J., dissenting: The issue in this case is the reasonable value of the professional services performed by Dr. Gregorio Figueras for

Leandro Serrano. The issue is not as to whether Dr. Gregorio Figueras is criminally guilty of fabricating the much discussed Exhibit C. With or without Exhibit C, there is sufficient evidence, including the physician's book of account, which establishes satisfactory the approximate number of visits made by Doctor Figueras to Mr. Serrano and the proper amount for each visit. xxx PEOPLE v. ODENCIO FACTS: (1) Florencio Odencio and Guiamelon Mama were charged with the crime of murder of Prowa Talib. (2) Prowa Talib, a 40-year old farmer was in the yard of his house in the evening of June 1968 with his wife Sitie, when he was felled down by a volley of shots. Setie rushed to the aid of her husband. She saw Guiamelon Mama holding a gun near a coconut tree around six brazas away. Then, she heard another volley of shots. She saw Florencio Odencio (Poren), also holding a gun near another coconut tree around ten meters away in the yard of the house of her neighbor, Daongan Karaing. She noticed that Kadir Oranen, who was nearby, had fallen to the ground around three arms' length from Daongan's house, Kadir died instantly. (3) While Setie was comforting her husband, he allegedly told her that he was going to die. He directed her to remember what had happened to him and that they had seen Guiamelon Mama and Poren armed with guns. Prior to that shooting incident, Prowa Talib had reported to the barrio captain that Florencio Odencio had stolen his lumber. Witnesses: (1) At the time the incident occurred, Japal Rongot was on his way to Talib's house. He encountered Guiamelon and Joseph Odencio with both of whom he was well acquainted. (2) Ngelam Towa (Nilan Tuwa), another neighbor and the uncle of Setie, heard the gunshots on the occasion in question. (3) Policemen arrived at Talib's house. Setie informed them that Guiamelon was the gunwielder. They brought Talib to a medical clinic where he was interrogated by Patrolman Joaquin Saada. Talib told Saada that his assailants were Guiamelon, Florencio Odencio and Florencio's father, Joseph Odencio. Due to the critical condition of Talib he was not able to sign his dying declaration (Exh. B) as taken down by Patrolman Saada. Talib was brought to the hospital. He died on the following day. (4) On July 1, 1968 or within forty-eight hours after taking Talib's unsigned antemortem statement, Saada executed an affidavit reciting the circumstances surrounding the taking thereof. Saada testified in court on Talib's dying declaration. Defenses: (1) In his defense, Florencio, denied that he shot Talib and that he had a misunderstanding with Oranen and Talib with both of whom he was acquainted. Florencio testified that he was in his house when the shooting occurred. Florencio's alibi was corroborated by his wife and his brother-in-law, Antonio Cesar. (2) The other accused, Guiamelon Mama, adopted the same line of defense. He declared that he was also in his house when Talib was shot; that he had no misunderstanding with Talib, who is his father's brother-in-law, being the brother of his stepmother, his father's second wife; that he was arrested while he was attending Talib's funeral, and that he came to know his co-accused Florencio Odencio only in jail.

(3) The accused presented Samuel Jubilan, a Constabulary Sergeant, who testified that he was present when Patrolman Saada interrogated Talib and that the latter declared that he was not able to recognize his assailant because it was dark. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: (1) That the accused were indubitably identified as the assailants in Talib's dying declarations to his wife and Patrolman Saada. (2) That there "was a good amount of lighting in the yard of Prowa Talib because he was preparing" supper when he was shot and that Setie was able to recognize the accused because she had been acquainted with them for a long time. As stated above, two witnesses saw the accused in the vicinity of Talib's house shortly after the shooting Therefore, the contention of appellants' counsel de oficio that they had not been sufficiently identified as the killers cannot be sustained. (3) The manner in which they shot the victims shows treachery. ISSUE: Whether or not Talibs dying declaration was sufficiently proven. YES. RATIO: (1) The rule is that a dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness, who heard it, may testify thereto without the necessity, of course, of reproducing exactly the words of the decedent, if he is able to give the substance thereof. An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down. (2) The guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt. As they were co-conspirators, they are each liable for the two murders. There being no modifying circumstances concomitant with the commission of the two assassinations, the trial court properly penalized each murder with reclusion perpetua (Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code).