evidence - cases - set 1 complete.doc

8/13/2019 Evidence - Cases - Set 1 Complete.doc

1/117

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010

BSB GROUP, INC., repree!"e# by $" Pre$#e!", Mr. RIC%R&O B%NG%'%N,Petitioner,vs.

S%((' GO a.).a. S%((' GO*B%NG%'%N,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

PER%(T%,J.:

This is a Petition for Revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt assailin% the Decision of the !ourt of&ppeals in !&'(.R. SP No. )*+-dated &pril , $, "hich reversed and set aside the Septe/ber -0,#and Nove/ber $, #0Orders issued b1 the Re%ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 2ranch 0+ #in!ri/inal !ase No. '-$) for 3ualified theft. The said orders, in turn, respectivel1 denied the /otionfiled b1 herein respondent Sall1 (o for the suppression of the testi/onial and docu/entar1 evidencerelative to a Securit1 2an4 account, and denied reconsideration.

The basic antecedents are no lon%er disputed.

Petitioner, the 2S2 (roup, Inc., is a dul1 or%ani5ed do/estic corporation presided b1 its hereinrepresentative, Ricardo 2an%a1an 62an%a1an7. Respondent Sall1 (o, alternativel1 referred to as Sall1Sia (o and Sall1 (o'2an%a1an, is 2an%a1an8s "ife, "ho "as e/plo1ed in the co/pan1 as a cashier, and"as en%a%ed, a/on% others, to receive and account for the pa1/ents /ade b1 the various custo/ersof the co/pan1.

In , 2an%a1an filed "ith the Manila Prosecutor8s Office a co/plaint for estafa and9or 3ualified

theft$

a%ainst respondent, alle%in% that several chec4s+

representin% the a%%re%ate a/ountof P-,$0#,-0$.$ issued b1 the co/pan18s custo/ers in pa1/ent of their obli%ation "ere, instead ofbein% turned over to the co/pan18s coffers, indorsed b1 respondent "ho deposited the sa/e to herpersonal ban4in% account /aintained at Securit1 2an4 and Trust !o/pan1 6Securit1 2an47 in Divisoria,Manila 2ranch.*:pon a findin% that the evidence adduced "as uncontroverted, the assistant cit1prosecutor reco//ended the filin% of the Infor/ation for 3ualified theft a%ainst respondent.)

&ccordin%l1, respondent "as char%ed before the Re%ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 2ranch 0+, in anInfor/ation, the inculpator1 portion of "hich reads;

That in or about or so/eti/e durin% the period co/prised 6sic7 bet"een and? October-=)=, inclusive, in the !it1 of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there "illfull1,unla"full1 and feloniousl1 "ith intent >to? %ain and "ithout the 4no"led%e and consent of the o"ner

thereof, ta4e, steal and carr1 a"a1 cash /one1 in the total a/ount of P-,$0#,-0$.$ belon%in% to 2S2(RO:P O@ !OMP&NIS represented b1 RI!&RDO 2&N(&A&N, to the da/a%e and preBudice of saido"ner in the aforesaid a/ount of P-,$0#,-0$.$, Philippine currenc1.

That in the co//ission of the said offense, said accused acted "ith %rave abuse of confidence, bein%then e/plo1ed as cashier b1 said co/plainant at the ti/e of the co//ission of the said offense and assuch she "as entrusted "ith the said a/ount of /one1.

!ontrar1 to la".=

Respondent entered a ne%ative plea "hen arrai%ned.-The trial ensued. On the pre/ise thatrespondent had alle%edl1 encashed the subBect chec4s and deposited the correspondin% a/ounts

thereof to her personal ban4in% account, the prosecution /oved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecu/ 9ad testificandu/ a%ainst the respective /ana%ers or records custodians of Securit1 2an48sDivisoria 2ranch, as "ell as of the &sian Savin%s 2an4 6no" Metropolitan 2an4 C Trust !o. >Metroban4?7,in


2/117

2

nevertheless "aived her obBection to the irrelevanc1 of the Securit1 2an4 account /entioned in thesa/e co/plaint'affidavit, inas/uch as she "as ad/ittedl1 "illin% to address the alle%ations "ithrespect thereto.-0

Petitioner, opposin% respondent8s /ove, ar%ued for the relevanc1 of the Metroban4 account on the%round that the co/plaint'affidavit sho"ed that there "ere t"o chec4s "hich respondent alle%edl1deposited in an account "ith the said ban4.-#To this, respondent filed a supple/ental /otion to 3uash,invo4in% the absolutel1 confidential nature of the Metroban4 account under the provisions of Republic&ct 6R.&.7 No. -#$.-$The trial court did not sustain respondent hence, it denied the /otion to 3uashfor lac4 of /erit.-+

Mean"hile, the prosecution "as able to present in court the testi/on1 of lenita Marasi%an6Marasi%an7, the representative of Securit1 2an4. In a nutshell, Marasi%an8s testi/on1 sou%ht to provethat bet"een -=)) and -=)=, respondent, "hile en%a%ed as cashier at the 2S2 (roup, Inc., "as able torun a"a1 "ith the chec4s issued to the co/pan1 b1 its custo/ers, endorse the sa/e, and credit thecorrespondin% a/ounts to her personal deposit account "ith Securit1 2an4. In the course of thetesti/on1, the subBect chec4s "ere presented to Marasi%an for identification and /ar4in% as the sa/echec4s received b1 respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her personal account "ith Securit12an4.-*2ut before the testi/on1 could be co/pleted, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, -)see4in%the eEclusion of Marasi%an8s testi/on1 and acco/pan1in% docu/ents thus far received, bearin% on the

subBect Securit1 2an4 account. This ti/e respondent invo4es, in addition to irrelevanc1, the privile%e ofconfidentialit1 under R.&. No. -#$.

The trial court, nevertheless, denied the /otion in its Septe/ber -0, # Order.-=& /otion forreconsideration "as subse3uentl1 filed, but it "as also denied in the Order dated Nove/ber $,#.These t"o orders are the subBect of the instant case.

&%%rieved, and believin% that the trial court %ravel1 abused its discretion in actin% the "a1 it did,respondent elevated the /atter to the !ourt of &ppeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule +$.@indin% /erit in the petition, the !ourt of &ppeals reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the trialcourt in its &pril , $ Decision.-The decision reads;

FHR@OR, the petition is hereb1 (R&NTD. The assailed orders dated Septe/ber -0, # and

Nove/ber $, # are RVRSD and ST &SID. The testi/on1 of the S2T! representative is orderedstric4en fro/ the records.

SO ORDRD.

Fith the denial of its /otion for reconsideration,0petitioner is no" before the !ourt pleadin% the sa/eissues as those raised before the lo"er courts.

In this Petition#under Rule #$, petitioner averred in the /ain that the !ourt of &ppeals had seriousl1erred in reversin% the assailed orders of the trial court, and in effect stri4in% out Marasi%an8s testi/on1dealin% "ith respondent8s deposit account "ith Securit1 2an4.$It asserted that apart fro/ the fact thatthe said evidence had a direct relation to the subBect /atter of the case for 3ualified theft and, hence,

brin%s the case under one of the eEceptions to the covera%e of confidentialit1 under R.&.-#$.+Petitioner believed that "hat constituted the subBect /atter in liti%ation "as to be deter/inedb1 the alle%ations in the infor/ation and, in this respect, it alluded to the assailed Nove/ber $, #Order of the trial court, "hich declared to be erroneous the li/itation of the present in3uir1 /erel1 to"hat "as contained in the infor/ation.*

@or her part, respondent clai/ed that the /one1 represented b1 the Securit1 2an4 account "as neitherrelevant nor /aterial to the case, because nothin% in the cri/inal infor/ation su%%ested that the/one1 therein deposited "as the subBect /atter of the case. She invited particular attention to thatportion of the cri/inal Infor/ation "hich averred that she has stolen and carried a"a1 cash /one1 inthe total a/ount of P-,$0#,-0$.$. She advanced the notion that the ter/ Gcash /one1G stated in theInfor/ation "as not s1non1/ous "ith the chec4s she "as purported to have stolen fro/ petitioner anddeposited in her personal ban4in% account. Thus, the chec4s "hich the prosecution had Marasi%an

identif1, as "ell as the testi/on1 itself of Marasi%an, should be suppressed b1 the trial court at least forviolatin% respondent8s ri%ht to due process.)More in point, respondent opined that ad/ittin% thetesti/on1 of Marasi%an, as "ell as the evidence pertainin% to the Securit1 2an4 account, "ould violatethe secrec1 rule under R.&. No. -#$.=

In its repl1, petitioner asserted the sufficienc1 of the alle%ations in the cri/inal Infor/ation for 3ualifiedtheft, as the sa/e has sufficientl1 alle%ed the ele/ents of the offense char%ed. It posits that throu%hMarasi%an8s testi/on1, the !ourt "ould be able to establish that the chec4s involved, copies of "hich"ere attached to the co/plaint'affidavit filed "ith the prosecutor, had indeed been received b1respondent as cashier, but "ere, thereafter, deposited b1 the latter to her personal account "ithSecurit1 2an4. Petitioner held that the chec4s represented the cash /one1 stolen b1 respondent and,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt29


3/117

+

hence, the subBect /atter in this case is not onl1 the cash a/ount represented b1 the chec4ssupposedl1 stolen b1 respondent, but also the chec4s the/selves.0

Fe derive fro/ the conflictin% advocacies of the parties that the issue for resolution is "hether thetesti/on1 of Marasi%an and the acco/pan1in% docu/ents are irrelevant to the case, and "hether the1are also violative of the absolutel1 confidential nature of ban4 deposits and, hence, eEcluded b1operation of R.&. No. -#$. The 3uestion of ad/issibilit1 of the evidence thus co/es to the fore. &ndthe !ourt, after deliberative esti/ation, finds the subBect evidence to be indeed inad/issible.

Prefatoril1, funda/ental is the precept in all cri/inal prosecutions, that the constitutive acts of theoffense /ust be established "ith un"averin% eEactitude and /oral certaint1 because this is the criticaland onl1 re3uisite to a findin% of %uilt. 0-Theft is present "hen a person, "ith intent to %ain but "ithoutviolence a%ainst or inti/idation of persons or force upon thin%s, ta4es the personal propert1 of another"ithout the latter8s consent. It is 3ualified "hen, a/on% others, and as alle%ed in the instant case, it isco//itted "ith abuse of confidence.0The prosecution of this offense necessaril1 focuses on theeEistence of the follo"in% ele/ents; 6a7 there "as ta4in% of personal propert1 belon%in% to another 6b7the ta4in% "as done "ith intent to %ain 6c7 the ta4in% "as done "ithout the consent of the o"ner 6d7the ta4in% "as done "ithout violence a%ainst or inti/idation of persons or force upon thin%s and 6e7 it"as done "ith abuse of confidence.00In turn, "hether these ele/ents concur in a "a1 that overco/esthe presu/ption of %uiltlessness, is a 3uestion that /ust pass the test of relevanc1 and co/petenc1 in

accordance "ith Section 0

0#

Rule -) of the Rules of !ourt.

Thus, "hether these pieces of evidence sou%ht to be suppressed in this case the testi/on1 of Marasi%an, as "ell as the chec4s purported to have been stolen and deposited in respondent8s Securit12an4 account are relevant, is to be addressed b1 considerin% "hether the1 have such direct relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its eEistence or non'eEistence or "hether the1 relatecollaterall1 to a fact fro/ "hich, b1 process of lo%ic, an inference /a1 be /ade as to the eEistence ornon'eEistence of the fact in issue.0$

The fact in issue appears to be that respondent has ta4en a"a1 cash in the a/ount of P-,$0#,-0$.$fro/ the coffers of petitioner. In support of this alle%ation, petitioner see4s to establish the eEistence ofthe ele/ental act of ta4in% b1 adducin% evidence that respondent, at several ti/es bet"een -=)) and-=)=, deposited so/e of its chec4s to her personal account "ith Securit1 2an4. Petitioner addresses the

incon%ruence bet"een the alle%ation of theft of cash in the Infor/ation, on the one hand, and theevidence that respondent had first stolen the chec4s and deposited the sa/e in her ban4in% account,on the other hand, b1 i/pressin% upon the !ourt that there obtains no difference bet"een cash andchec4 for purposes of prosecutin% respondent for theft of cash. Petitioner is /ista4en.

In theft, the act of unla"ful ta4in% connotes deprivation of personal propert1 of one b1 another "ithintent to %ain, and it is i//aterial that the offender is able or unable to freel1 dispose of the propert1stolen because the deprivation relative to the offended part1 has alread1 ensued fro/ such act ofeEecution.0+The alle%ation of theft of /one1, hence, necessitates that evidence presented /ust have atendenc1 to prove that the offender has unla"full1 ta4en /one1 belon%in% to another. Interestin%l1,petitioner has ta4en pains in atte/ptin% to dra" a connection bet"een the evidence subBect of theinstant revie", and the alle%ation of theft in the Infor/ation b1 clai/in% that respondent hadfraudulentl1 deposited the chec4s in her o"n na/e. 2ut this line of ar%u/ent "or4s /ore preBudice

than favor, because it in effect, see4s to establish the co//ission, not of theft, but rather of so/e othercri/e probabl1 estafa.

Moreover, that there is no difference bet"een cash and chec4 is true in other instances. In estafa b1conversion, for instance, "hether the thin% converted is cash or chec4, is i//aterial in relation to thefor/al alle%ation in an infor/ation for that offense a chec4, after all, "hile not re%arded as le%altender, is nor/all1 accepted under co//ercial usa%e as a substitute for cash, and the credit itrepresents in stated /onetar1 value is properl1 capable of appropriation. &nd it is in this respect that"hat the offender does "ith the chec4 subse3uent to the act of unla"full1 ta4in% it beco/es /aterialinas/uch as this offense is a continuin% one.0*In other "ords, in pursuin% a case for this offense, theprosecution /a1 establish its cause b1 the presentation of the chec4s involved. These chec4s "ouldthen constitute the best evidence to establish their contents and to prove the ele/ental act ofconversion in support of the proposition that the offender has indeed indorsed the sa/e in his o"n

na/e.0)

Theft, ho"ever, is not of such character. Thus, for our purposes, as the Infor/ation in this case accusesrespondent of havin% stolen cash, proof tendin% to establish that respondent has actuali5ed her cri/inalintent b1 indorsin% the chec4s and depositin% the proceeds thereof in her personal account, beco/esnot onl1 irrelevant but also i//aterial and, on that score, inad/issible in evidence.

Fe no" address the issue of "hether the ad/ission of Marasi%an8s testi/on1 on the particulars ofrespondent8s account "ith Securit1 2an4, as "ell as of the correspondin% evidence of the chec4salle%edl1 deposited in said account, constitutes an unallo"able in3uir1 under R.&. -#$.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt38


4/117

4

It is conceded that "hile the funda/ental la" has not bothered "ith the trivialit1 of specificall1addressin% privac1 ri%hts relative to ban4in% accounts, there, nevertheless, eEists in our Burisdiction ale%iti/ate eEpectation of privac1 %overnin% such accounts. The source of this ri%ht of eEpectation isstatutor1, and it is found in R.&. No. -#$,0=other"ise 4no"n as the 2an4 Secrec1 &ct of -=$$. #

R.&. No. -#$ has t"o allied purposes. It hopes to discoura%e private hoardin% and at the sa/e ti/eencoura%e the people to deposit their /one1 in ban4in% institutions, so that it /a1 be utili5ed b1 "a1 ofauthori5ed loans and thereb1 assist in econo/ic develop/ent.#-O"in% to this piece of le%islation, theconfidentialit1 of ban4 deposits re/ains to be a basic state polic1 in the Philippines. #Section of thela" institutionali5ed this polic1 b1 characteri5in% as absolutel1 confidential in %eneral all deposits of"hatever nature "ith ban4s and other financial institutions in the countr1. It declares;

Se"$o! 2.&ll deposits of "hatever nature "ith ban4s or ban4in% institutions in the Philippines includin%invest/ents in bonds issued b1 the (overn/ent of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and itsinstru/entalities, are hereb1 considered as of an absolutel1 confidential nature and /a1 not beeEa/ined, in3uired or loo4ed into b1 an1 person, %overn/ent official, bureau or office, eEcept upon"ritten per/ission of the depositor, or in cases of i/peach/ent, or upon order of a co/petent court incases of briber1 or dereliction of dut1 of public officials, or in cases "here the /one1 deposited orinvested is the subBect /atter of the liti%ation.1avvphi1

Subse3uent statutor1 enact/ents#0

have eEpanded the list of eEceptions to this polic1 1et the secrec1of ban4 deposits still lies as the %eneral rule, fallin% as it does "ithin the le%all1 reco%ni5ed 5ones ofprivac1.##There is, in fact, /uch disfavor to construin% these pri/ar1 and supple/ental eEceptions in a/anner that "ould authori5e unbridled discretion, "hether %overn/ental or other"ise, in utili5in% theseeEceptions as authorit1 for un"arranted in3uir1 into ban4 accounts. It is then perceivable that thepresent le%al order is obli%ed to conserve the absolutel1 confidential nature of ban4 deposits.#$

The /easure of protection afforded b1 the la" has been eEplained in !hina 2an4in% !orporation v.Orte%a.#+That case principall1 addressed the issue of "hether the prohibition a%ainst an eEa/ination ofban4 deposits precludes %arnish/ent in satisfaction of a Bud%/ent. Rulin% on that issue in the ne%ative,the !ourt found %uidance in the relevant portions of the le%islative deliberations on Senate 2ill No. 0$-and House 2ill No. 0=**, "hich later beca/e the 2an4 Secrec1 &ct, and it held that the absoluteconfidentialit1 rule in R.&. No. -#$ actuall1 ai/s at protection fro/ un"arranted in3uir1 or

investi%ation if the purpose of such in3uir1 or investi%ation is /erel1 to deter/ine the eEistence andnature, as "ell as the a/ount of the deposit in an1 %iven ban4 account. Thus,

E E E The lo"er court did not order an eEa/ination of or in3uir1 into the deposit of 2C2 @orestDevelop/ent !orporation, as conte/plated in the la". It /erel1 re3uired Tan i/ ion% to infor/ thecourt "hether or not the defendant 2C2 @orest Develop/ent !orporation had a deposit in the !hina2an4in% !orporation onl1 for purposes of the %arnish/ent issued b1 it, so that the ban4 "ould hold thesa/e intact and not allo" an1 "ithdra"al until further order. It "ill be noted fro/ the discussion of theconference co//ittee report on Senate 2ill No. 0$- and House 2ill No. 0=**"hich later beca/eRepublic &ct No. -#$, that it "as not the intention of the la"/a4ers to place ban4s deposits be1ondthe reach of eEecution to satisf1 a final Bud%/entThus;

E E E Mr. Marcos; No", for purposes of the record, I should li4e the !hair/an of the !o//ittee on Fa1s

and Means to clarif1 this further. Suppose an individual has a taE case. He is bein% held liable b1 the2ureau of Internal Revenue >62IR7? or, sa1, P-,. "orth of taE liabilit1, and because of this thedeposit of this individual >has been? attached b1 the >2IR?.

Mr. Ra/os; The attach/ent "ill onl1 appl1 after the court has pronounced sentence declarin% theliabilit1 of such person. 2ut "here the pri/ar1 ai/ is to deter/ine "hether he has a ban4 deposit inorder to brin% about a proper assess/ent b1 the >2IR?, such in3uir1 is not allo"ed b1 this proposed la".

Mr. Marcos; 2ut under our rules of procedure and under the !ivil !ode, the attach/ent or %arnish/entof /one1 deposited is allo"ed. et us assu/e for instance that there is a preli/inar1 attach/ent "hichis for %arnish/ent or for holdin% liable all /one1s deposited belon%in% to a certain individual, but suchattach/ent or %arnish/ent "ill brin% out into the open the value of such deposit. Is that prohibited b1...the la"J

Mr. Ra/os; It is onl1 prohibited to the eEtent that the in3uir1... is /ade onl1 for the purpose ofsatisf1in% a taE liabilit1 alread1 declared for the protection of the ri%ht in favor of the %overn/ent but"hen the obBect is /erel1 to in3uire "hether he has a deposit or not for purposes of taEation, then thisis full1 covered b1 the la". E E E

Mr. Marcos; The la" prohibits a /ere investi%ation into the eEistence and the a/ount of the deposit.

Mr. Ra/os; Into the ver1 nature of such deposit. E E E#*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt47


5/117

-

In ta4in% eEclusion fro/ the covera%e of the confidentialit1 rule, petitioner in the instant case positsthat the account /aintained b1 respondent "ith Securit1 2an4 contains the proceeds of the chec4s thatshe has fraudulentl1 appropriated to herself and, thus, falls under one of the eEceptions in Section ofR.&. No. -#$ that the /one1 4ept in said account is the subBect /atter in liti%ation. To hi%hli%ht this thesis, petitioner avers, citin% Matha1 v. !onsolidated 2an4 and Trust !o., #)that the subBect /atter ofthe action refers to the ph1sical facts the thin%s real or personal the /one1, lands, chattels and theli4e, in relation to "hich the suit is prosecuted, "hich in the instant case should refer to the /one1deposited in the Securit1 2an4 account.#=On the surface, ho"ever, it see/s that petitioner8s theor1 isvalid to a point, 1et a deeper treat/ent tends to sho" that it has ar%ued 3uite off'tan%entiall1. This,because, "hile Matha1 did eEplain "hat the subBect /atter of an action is, it nevertheless did so onl1 todeter/ine "hether the class suit in that case "as properl1 brou%ht to the court.

Fhat indeed constitutes the subBect /atter in liti%ation in relation to Section of R.&. No. -#$ hasbeen pointedl1 and a/pl1 addressed in :nion 2an4 of the Philippines v. !ourt of &ppeals, $in "hich the!ourt noted that the in3uir1 into ban4 deposits allo"able under R.&. No. -#$ /ust be pre/ised on thefact that the /one1 deposited in the account is itself the subBect of the action.$-(iven this perspective,"e deduce that the subBect /atter of the action in the case at bar is to be deter/ined fro/ theindict/ent that char%es respondent "ith the offense, and not fro/ the evidence sou%ht b1 theprosecution to be ad/itted into the records. In the cri/inal Infor/ation filed "ith the trial court,respondent, un3ualifiedl1 and in plain lan%ua%e, is char%ed "ith 3ualified theft b1 abusin% petitioner8strust and confidence and stealin% cash in the a/ount of P-,$0#,-0$.$. The said Infor/ation /a4es nofactual alle%ation that in so/e /aterial "a1 involves the chec4s subBect of the testi/onial anddocu/entar1 evidence sou%ht to be suppressed. Neither do the alle%ations in said Infor/ation /a4e/ention of the supposed ban4 account in "hich the funds represented b1 the chec4s have alle%edl1been 4ept.

In other "ords, it can hardl1 be inferred fro/ the indict/ent itself that the Securit1 2an4 account is theostensible subBect of the prosecution8s in3uir1. Fithout needlessl1 eEpandin% the scope of "hat isplainl1 alle%ed in the Infor/ation, the subBect /atter of the action in this case is the /one1 a/ountin%to P-,$0#,-0$.$ alle%ed to have been stolen b1 respondent, and not the /one1 e3uivalent of thechec4s "hich are sou%ht to be ad/itted in evidence. Thus, it is that, "hich the prosecution is bound toprove "ith its evidence, and no other.

It co/es clear that the ad/ission of testi/onial and docu/entar1 evidence relative to respondent8sSecurit1 2an4 account serves no other purpose than to establish the eEistence of such account, itsnature and the a/ount 4ept in it. It constitutes an atte/pt b1 the prosecution at an i/per/issiblein3uir1 into a ban4 deposit account the privac1 and confidentialit1 of "hich is protected b1 la". On thisscore alone, the obBection posed b1 respondent in her /otion to suppress should have indeed put anend to the controvers1 at the ver1 first instance it "as raised before the trial court.

In su/, "e hold that the testi/on1 of Marasi%an on the particulars of respondent8s supposed ban4account "ith Securit1 2an4 and the docu/entar1 evidence represented b1 the chec4s adduced insupport thereof, are not onl1 inco/petent for bein% eEcluded b1 operation of R.&. No. -#$. The1 areli4e"ise irrelevant to the case, inas/uch as the1 do not appear to have an1 lo%ical and reasonableconnection to the prosecution of respondent for 3ualified theft. Fe find full /erit in and affir/respondent8s obBection to the evidence of the prosecution. The !ourt of &ppeals "as, therefore, correct

in reversin% the assailed orders of the trial court.

& final note. In an1 %iven Burisdiction "here the ri%ht of privac1 eEtends its scope to include anindividual8s financial privac1 ri%hts and personal financial /atters, there is an inter/ediate orhei%htened scrutin1 %iven b1 courts and le%islators to la"s infrin%in% such ri%hts.$Should there bedoubts in upholdin% the absolutel1 confidential nature of ban4 deposits a%ainst affir/in% the authorit1to in3uire into such accounts, then such doubts /ust be resolved in favor of the for/er. This attitudepersists unless con%ress lifts its fin%er to reverse the %eneral state polic1 respectin% the absolutel1confidential nature of ban4 deposits.$0

FHR@OR, the petition is DNID. The Decision of the !ourt of &ppeals in !&'(.R. SP No. )*+dated &pril , $, reversin% the Septe/ber -0, # and Nove/ber $, # Orders of the Re%ional

Trial !ourt of Manila, 2ranch 0+ in !ri/inal !ase No. '-$), is &@@IRMD.

SO ORDRD.


Manila

@IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 148220 u!e 1-, 200-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.html#fnt53


6/117

6

ROSEN&O /ERRER%,petitioner,vs.

ROSEN&O %(B%, $!or, repree!"e# by $ o"er %RMI %. %(B%, a!# /ON. NIMF% CUEST%*I(C/ES, Pre$#$!3 u#3e, Bra! 48, Re3$o!a Tr$a Cour", Ma!$a,respondents.

D ! I S I O N

C%RPIO,J.:

The !ase

This is a petition for revie"-to set aside the Decisiondated = Nove/ber of the !ourt of &ppeals6Gappellate courtG7 in !&'(.R. SP No. $=*++. The appellate court affir/ed t"o Orders 0issued b1 2ranch#) of the Re%ional Trial !ourt of Manila 6Gtrial courtG7 in SP No. =)'))*$=. The Order dated 0 @ebruar1 directed Rosendo Herrera 6GpetitionerG7 to sub/it to deoE1ribonucleic acid 6GDN&G7 paternit1testin%, "hile the Order dated ) he? is co/pelled to ta4e "ould be inconclusive, irrelevant and thecoercive process to obtain the re3uisite speci/en, unconstitutional.G

In an Order dated )


7/117

. Public respondent ruled to accept DN& test "ithout considerin% the li/itations on, andconditions precedent for the ad/issibilit1 of DN& testin% and i%norin% the serious constraintsaffectin% the reliabilit1 of the test as ad/itted b1 private respondent8s GeEpertG "itness.

0. SubBect Orders lac4 le%al and factual support, "ith public respondent rel1in% on scientificfindin%s and conclusions unfit for Budicial notice and unsupported b1 eEperts in the field andscientific treatises.

#. :nder the present circu/stances the DN& testin% petitioner >is? co/pelled to ta4e "ill beinconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the re3uisite speci/en fro/ thepetitioner, unconstitutional.*

The Rulin% of the !ourt of &ppeals

On = Nove/ber , the appellate court issued a decision den1in% the petition and affir/in% the3uestioned Orders of the trial court. The appellate court stated that petitioner /erel1 desires to correctthe trial court8s evaluation of evidence. Thus, appeal is an available re/ed1 for an error of Bud%/entthat the court /a1 co//it in the eEercise of its Burisdiction. The appellate court also stated that theproposed DN& paternit1 testin% does not violate his ri%ht a%ainst self'incri/ination because the ri%htapplies onl1 to testi/onial co/pulsion. @inall1, the appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still

refute a possible adverse result of the DN& paternit1 testin%. The dispositive portion of the appellatecourt8s decision reads;

FHR@OR, fore%oin% pre/ises considered, the Petition is hereb1 &ENIE&&UECOURSE, andordered dis/issed, and the challen%ed orders of the Trial !ourt %FFIRME&, "ith costs to Petitioner.

SO ORDRD.)

Petitioner /oved for reconsideration, "hich the appellate court denied in its Resolution dated 0 Ma1-.=

Issues

Petitioner raises the issue of "hether a DN& test is a valid probative tool in this Burisdiction to deter/inefiliation. Petitioner as4s for the conditions under "hich DN& technolo%1 /a1 be inte%rated into our

Budicial s1ste/ and the prere3uisites for the ad/issibilit1 of DN& test results in a paternit1 suit.-

Petitioner further sub/its that the appellate court %ravel1 abused its discretion "hen it authori5ed thetrial court Gto e/bar4 in >sic? a ne" procedure EEE to deter/ine filiation despite the absence ofle%islation to ensure its reliabilit1 and inte%rit1, "ant of official reco%nition as /ade clear in Lim vs.Court of Appealsand the presence of technical and le%al constraints in respect of >sic? itsi/ple/entation.G--Petitioner /aintains that the proposed DN& paternit1 testin% violates his ri%hta%ainst self'incri/ination.-

The Rulin% of the !ourt

The petition has no /erit.

2efore discussin% the issues on DN& paternit1 testin%, "e dee/ it appropriate to %ive an overvie" of apaternit1 suit and appl1 it to the facts of this case. Fe shall consider the re3uire/ents of the @a/il1!ode and of the Rules of vidence to establish paternit1 and filiation.

An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit

@iliation proceedin%s are usuall1 filed not Bust to adBudicate paternit1 but also to secure a le%al ri%htassociated "ith paternit1, such as citi5enship,-0support 6as in the present case7, or inheritance. Theburden of provin% paternit1 is on the person "ho alle%es that the putative father is the biolo%ical father

of the child. There are four si%nificant procedural aspects of a traditional paternit1 action "hich partieshave to face; aprima facie case, affir/ative defenses, presu/ption of le%iti/ac1, and ph1sicalrese/blance bet"een the putative father and child.-#

&prima facie case eEists if a "o/an declares that she had seEual relations "ith the putative father. Inour Burisdiction, corroborative proof is re3uired to carr1 the burden for"ard and shift it to the putativefather.-$

There are t"o affir/ative defenses available to the putative father. The putative father /a1 sho"incapabilit1 of seEual relations "ith the /other, because of either ph1sical absence or i/potenc1.-+The
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt16


8/117

8

putative father /a1 also sho" that the /other had seEual relations "ith other /en at the ti/e ofconception.

& child born to a husband and "ife durin% a valid /arria%e is presu/ed le%iti/ate.-*The child8sle%iti/ac1 /a1 be i/pu%ned onl1 under the strict standards provided b1 la".-)

@inall1, ph1sical rese/blance bet"een the putative father and child /a1 be offered as part of evidence

of paternit1. Rese/blance is a trial techni3ue uni3ue to a paternit1 proceedin%. Ho"ever, althou%hli4eness is a function of heredit1, there is no /athe/atical for/ula that could 3uantif1 ho" /uch achild /ust or /ust not loo4 li4e his biolo%ical father. -=This 4ind of evidence appeals to the e/otions ofthe trier of fact.

In the present case, the trial court encountered three of the four aspects. &r/i &lba, respondent8s/other, put for"ard aprima faciecase "hen she asserted that petitioner is respondent8s biolo%icalfather. &"are that her assertion is not enou%h to convince the trial court, she offered corroborativeproof in the for/ of letters and pictures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied &r/i &lba8s assertion. Hedenied ever havin% seEual relations "ith &r/i &lba and stated that respondent is &r/i &lba8s child "ithanother /an. &r/i &lba countered petitioner8s denial b1 sub/ittin% pictures of respondent andpetitioner side b1 side, to sho" ho" /uch the1 rese/ble each other.

Paternit1 and filiation disputes can easil1 beco/e credibilit1 contests. Fe no" loo4 to the la", rules,and %overnin% Burisprudence to help us deter/ine "hat evidence of incri/inatin% acts on paternit1 andfiliation are allo"ed in this Burisdiction.

Laws, Rules, and urisprudence !sta"lishin# Filiation

The relevant provisions of the @a/il1 !ode provide as follo"s;

&RT. -*$.Ille%iti/ate children /a1 establish their ille%iti/ate filiation in the sa/e "a1 and on the sa/eevidence as le%iti/ate children.

EEE

&RT. -*. The filiation of le%iti/ate children is established b1 an1 of the follo"in%;

6-7 The record of birth appearin% in the civil re%ister or a final Bud%/ent or

67 &n ad/ission of le%iti/ate filiation in a public docu/ent or a private hand"ritten instru/entand si%ned b1 the parent concerned.

In the absence of the fore%oin% evidence, the le%iti/ate filiation shall be proved b1;

6-7 The open and continuous possession of the status of a le%iti/ate child or

67 &n1 other /eans allo"ed b1 the Rules of !ourt and special la"s.

The Rules on vidence include provisions on pedi%ree. The relevant sections of Rule -0 provide;

S!. 0=.Act or declaration a"out pedi#ree.$The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable totestif1, in respect to the pedi%ree of another person related to hi/ b1 birth or /arria%e, /a1 bereceived in evidence "here it occurred before the controvers1, and the relationship bet"een the t"opersons is sho"n b1 evidence other than such act or declaration. The "ord Gpedi%reeG includesrelationship, fa/il1 %enealo%1, birth, /arria%e, death, the dates "hen and the places "here these factsoccurred, and the na/es of the relatives. It e/braces also facts of fa/il1 histor1 inti/atel1 connected"ith pedi%ree.

S!. #. Family reputation or tradition re#ardin# pedi#ree.$The reputation or tradition eEistin% in a

fa/il1 previous to the controvers1, in respect to the pedi%ree of an1 one of its /e/bers, /a1 bereceived in evidence if the "itness testif1in% thereon be also a /e/ber of the fa/il1, either b1consan%uinit1 or affinit1. ntries in fa/il1 bibles or other fa/il1 boo4s or charts, en%ravin% on rin%s,fa/il1 portraits and the li4e, /a1 be received as evidence of pedi%ree.

This !ourt8s rulin%s further specif1 "hat incri/inatin% acts are acceptable as evidence to establishfiliation. In Pe Lim v. CA,a case petitioner often cites, "e stated that the issue of paternit1 still has tobe resolved b1 such conventional evidence as the relevant $!r$$!a"$!3verbal and "ritten acts b1the putative father. :nder &rticle *) of the Ne" !ivil !ode, voluntar1 reco%nition b1 a parent shall be/ade in the record of birth, a "ill, a state/ent before a court of record, or in an1 authentic "ritin%. Tobe effective, the clai/ of filiation /ust be /ade b1 the putative father hi/self and the "ritin% /ust be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt20


9/117

9

the "ritin% of the putative father.-& notarial a%ree/ent to support a child "hose filiation is ad/ittedb1 the putative father "as considered acceptable evidence.etters to the /other vo"in% to be a %oodfather to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddlin% the child on various occasions, to%ether"ith the certificate of live birth, proved filiation.0Ho"ever, a student per/anent record, a "rittenconsent to a father8s operation, or a /arria%e contract "here the putative father %ave consent, cannotbe ta4en as authentic "ritin%.#Standin% alone, neither a certificate of baptis/$nor fa/il1pictures+are sufficient to establish filiation.

So far, the la"s, rules, and Burisprudence see/in%l1 li/it evidence of paternit1 and filiation toincri/inatin% acts alone. Ho"ever, advances in science sho" that sources of evidence of paternit1 andfiliation need not be li/ited to incri/inatin% acts. There is no" al/ost universal scientific a%ree/entthat blood %roupin% tests are conclusive on non'paternit1, althou%h inconclusive on paternit1.*

In Co Tao v. Court of Appeals,)the result of the blood %roupin% test sho"ed that the putative father"as a Gpossible fatherG of the child. Paternit1 "as i/puted to the putative father after the possibilit1 ofpaternit1 "as proven on presentation durin% trial of facts and circu/stances other than the results ofthe blood %roupin% test.

InJao v. Court of Appeals,=the child, the /other, and the putative father a%reed to sub/itthe/selves to a blood %roupin% test. The National 2ureau of Investi%ation 6GN2IG7 conducted the test,

"hich indicated that the child could not have been the possible offsprin% of the /other and the putativefather. Fe held that the result of the blood %roupin% test "as conclusive on the non'paternit1 of theputative father.

The present case as4s us to %o one step further. Fe are no" as4ed "hether DN& anal1sis /a1 bead/itted as evidence to prove paternit1.

%&A Analysis as !vidence

DN& is the funda/ental buildin% bloc4 of a person8s entire %enetic /a4e'up. DN& is found in all hu/ancells and is the sa/e in ever1 cell of the sa/e person. (enetic identit1 is uni3ue. Hence, a person8sDN& profile can deter/ine his identit1.0

DN& anal1sis is a procedure in "hich DN& eEtracted fro/ a biolo%ical sa/ple obtained fro/ anindividual is eEa/ined. The DN& is processed to %enerate a pattern, or a DN& profile, for the individualfro/ "ho/ the sa/ple is ta4en. This DN& profile is uni3ue for each person, eEcept for identicalt"ins.0-Fe 3uote relevant portions of the trial court8s 0 @ebruar1 Order "ith approval;

ver1one is born "ith a distinct %enetic blueprint called &N% :#eo;yr$bo!ue$ a$#


10/117

10

scene is co/pared "ith the 'nown'print. If a substantial a/ount of the identif1in% features are thesa/e, the DN& or fin%erprint is dee/ed to be a a". 2ut then, even if onl1 one feature of the DN& orfin%erprint is #$77ere!", it is dee/ed !o" "o a5e oe 7ro "e upe".

&s earlier stated, certain re%ions of hu/an DN& sho" variations bet"een people. In each of thesere%ions, a person possesses t"o %enetic t1pes called 'allele',one inherited fro/ each parent. In >a?paternit1 test, the forensic scientist loo4s at a nu/ber of these variable re%ions in an individual toproduce a DN& profile. !o/parin% neEt the DN& profiles of the /other and child, it is possible todeter/ine "hich half of the child8s DN& "as inherited fro/ the /other. The other half /ust have beeninherited fro/ the biolo%ical father. The alle%ed father8s profile is then eEa/ined to ascertain "hetherhe has the DN& t1pes in his profile, "hich /atch the paternal t1pes in the child. If the /an8s DN& t1pesdo not /atch that of the child, the /an is e;u#e#as the father. If the DN& t1pes /atch, then heis !o"e;u#e#as the father.06/phasis in the ori%inal7

&lthou%h the ter/ GDN& testin%G "as /entioned in the -==$ case of People v. Teehankee, Jr.,00it"as onl1 in the - case of Tijing v. Court of Appeals0# that /ore than a passin% /ention "as %ivento DN& anal1sis. In Tijing,"e issued a "rit of ha"eas corpusa%ainst respondent "ho abductedpetitioners8 1oun%est son. Testi/onial and docu/entar1 evidence and ph1sical rese/blance "ere usedto establish parenta%e. Ho"ever, "e observed that;

Parenta%e "ill still be resolved usin% conventional /ethods unless "e adopt the /odern and scientific"a1s available. @ortunatel1, "e have no" the facilit1 and eEpertise in usin% DN& test for identificationand parenta%e testin%. The :niversit1 of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute 6:P'NSRI7DN& &nal1sis aborator1 has no" the capabilit1 to conduct DN& t1pin% usin% short tande/ repeat 6STR7anal1sis. EEE @or it "as said, that courts should appl1 the results of science "hen co/pletel1 obtainedin aid of situations presented, since to reBect said result is to den1 pro%ress. Thou%h it is not necessar1in this case to resort to DN& testin%, in >the? future it "ould be useful to all concerned in the pro/ptresolution of parenta%e and identit1 issues.

Admissi"ility of %&A Analysis as !vidence

The case of People v. Vallejo0$discussed DN& anal1sis as evidence. This /a1 be considered a-) de%ree turn fro/ the !ourt8s "ar1 attitude to"ards DN& testin% in the -==* PeLimcase,0+"here

"e stated that GDN&, bein% a relativel1 ne" science, EEE has not 1et been accorded official reco%nitionb1 our courts.G In Vallejo, the DN& profile fro/ the va%inal s"abs ta4en fro/ the rape victi/ /atchedthe accused8s DN& profile. Fe affir/ed the accused8s conviction of rape "ith ho/icide and sentencedhi/ to death. Fe declared;

In assessin% the probative value of DN& evidence, therefore, courts should consider, a/on% otherthin%s, the follo"in% data; ho" the sa/ples "ere collected, ho" the1 "ere handled, the possibilit1 ofconta/ination of the sa/ples, the procedure follo"ed in anal15in% the sa/ples, "hether the properstandards and procedures "ere follo"ed in conductin% the tests, and the 3ualification of the anal1st"ho conducted the tests.0*

Vallejodiscussed the probative value, not ad/issibilit1, of DN& evidence. 21 , there "as no lon%eran1 3uestion on the validit1 of the use of DN& anal1sis as evidence. The !ourt /oved fro/ the issue ofaccordin% Gofficial reco%nitionG to DN& anal1sis as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures inconductin% DN& anal1sis.

In #, there "ere t"o other cases that had a si%nificant i/pact on Burisprudence on DN&testin%; People v. Yatar0) and In re: The rit of !a"eas Corpus for #e$nal%o %e Villa.0=In Yatar, a /atch eEisted bet"een the DN& profile of the se/en found in the victi/ and theDN& profile of the blood sa/ple %iven b1 appellant in open court. The !ourt,follo"in% Vallejo&sfootsteps, affir/ed the conviction of appellant because the ph1sical evidence,corroborated b1 circu/stantial evidence, sho"ed appellant %uilt1 of rape "ith ho/icide. In 'e Villa,the convict'petitioner presented DN& test results to prove that he is not the father of the childconceived at the ti/e of co//ission of the rape. The !ourt ruled that a difference bet"een the DN&profile of the convict'petitioner and the DN& profile of the victi/8s child does not preclude the convict'petitioner8s co//ission of rape.

In the present case, the various pleadin%s filed b1 petitioner and respondent refer to t"o :nited Statescases to support their respective positions on the ad/issibilit1 of DN& anal1sis as evidence; (r$e v.).*.#and 'au"ert v. +errell 'o Pharma-euti-als.#-In (r$e v. ).*., the trial court convicted@r1e of /urder. @r1e appealed his conviction to the Supre/e !ourt of the District of !olu/bia. Durin%trial, @r1e8s counsel offered an eEpert "itness to testif1 on the result of a s1stolic blood pressuredeception test#/ade on defendant. The state Supre/e !ourt affir/ed @r1e8s conviction and ruled thatGthe s1stolic blood pressure deception test has not 1et %ained such standin% and scientific reco%nitiona/on% ph1siolo%ical and ps1cholo%ical authorities as "ould Bustif1 the courts in ad/ittin% eEpert
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_125901_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_125901_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158802_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt42


11/117

11

testi/on1 deduced fro/ the discover1, develop/ent, and eEperi/ents thus far /ade.GThe (r$estandard of %eneral acceptance states as follo"s;


12/117

12

The opinion of a "itness on a /atter re3uirin% special 4no"led%e, s4ill, eEperience or trainin% "hich heis sho"n to possess /a1 be received in evidence.

This Rule does not pose an1 le%al obstacle to the ad/issibilit1 of DN& anal1sis as evidence. Indeed,even evidence on collateral /atters is allo"ed G"hen it tends in an1 reasonable de%ree to establish theprobabilit1 or i/probabilit1 of the fact in issue.G$

Indeed, it "ould have been convenient to /erel1 refer petitioner to our decisions in Tijing,Vallejoand Yatarto illustrate that DN& anal1sis is ad/issible as evidence. In our Burisdiction, therestrictive tests for ad/issibilit1 established b1 (r$e/*-hartand 'au"ert/0umho%o into the"ei%ht of the evidence.

Pro"ative -alue of %&A Analysis as !vidence

Despite our relativel1 liberal rules on ad/issibilit1, trial courts should be cautious in %ivin% credence toDN& anal1sis as evidence. Fe reiterate our state/ent in Vallejo;

In assessin% the probative value of DN& evidence, therefore, courts should consider, a/on% otherthin%s, the follo"in% data; ho" the sa/ples "ere collected, ho" the1 "ere handled, the possibilit1 ofconta/ination of the sa/ples, the procedure follo"ed in anal15in% the sa/ples, "hether the proper

standards and procedures "ere follo"ed in conductin% the tests, and the 3ualification of the anal1st"ho conducted the tests.$-?

Fe also repeat the trial court8s eEplanation of DN& anal1sis used in paternit1 cases;

In >a? paternit1 test, the forensic scientist loo4s at a nu/ber of these variable re%ions in an individual toproduce a DN& profile. !o/parin% neEt the DN& profiles of the /other and child, it is possible todeter/ine "hich half of the child8s DN& "as inherited fro/ the /other. The other half /ust have beeninherited fro/ the biolo%ical father. The alle%ed father8s profile is then eEa/ined to ascertain "hetherhe has the DN& t1pes in his profile, "hich /atch the paternal t1pes in the child. If the /an8s DN& t1pesdo not /atch that of the child, the /an is e;u#e#as the father. If the DN& t1pes /atch, then heis !o"e;u#e#as the father.$

It is not enou%h to state that the child8s DN& profile /atches that of the putative father. & co/plete/atch bet"een the DN& profile of the child and the DN& profile of the putative father does notnecessaril1 establish paternit1. @or this reason, follo"in% the hi%hest standard adopted in an &/erican

Burisdiction,$0 trial courts should re3uire at least ==.=L as a /ini/u/ value of the Probabilit1 ofPaternit1 6GFG7 prior to a paternit1 inclusion. F is a nu/erical esti/ate for the li4elihood of paternit1 ofa putative father co/pared to the probabilit1 of a rando/ /atch of t"o unrelated individuals. &nappropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is re3uired toco/pute for F. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternit1 inclusions, F "ill never e3ual to -L.Ho"ever, the accurac1 of F esti/ates is hi%her "hen the putative father, /other and child aresubBected to DN& anal1sis co/pared to those conducted bet"een the putative father and child alone.$#

DN& anal1sis that eEcludes the putative father fro/ paternit1 should be conclusive proof of non'

paternit1. If the value of F is less than ==.=L, the results of the DN& anal1sis should be considered ascorroborative evidence. If the value of F is ==.=L or hi%her, then there is re7u"abepresu/ption ofpaternit1.$$This refutable presu/ption of paternit1 should be subBected to the Vallejostandards.

Ri#ht A#ainst Self/ncrimination

Section -*, &rticle 0 of the -=)* !onstitution provides that Gno person shall be co/pelled to be a"itness a%ainst hi/self.G Petitioner asserts that obtainin% sa/ples fro/ hi/ for DN& testin% violates hisri%ht a%ainst self'incri/ination. Petitioner i%nores our earlier pronounce/ents that the privile%e isapplicable onl1 to testi/onial evidence. &%ain, "e 3uote relevant portions of the trial court8s 0 @ebruar1 Order "ith approval;

Obtainin% DN& sa/ples fro/ an accused in a cri/inal case or fro/ the respondent in a paternit1 case,

contrar1 to the belief of respondent in this action, "ill not violate the ri%ht a%ainst self'incri/ination.This privile%e applies onl1 to evidence that is 'communicative'in essence ta4en under duress 6Peoplevs. Olvis, -$# S!R& $-0, -=)*7. The Supre/e !ourt has ruled that the ri%ht a%ainst self'incri/ination is

Bust a prohibition on the use of ph1sical or /oral co/pulsion to eEtort co//unication 6testi/onialevidence7 fro/ a defendant, not an eEclusion of evidence ta4en fro/ his bod1 "hen it /a1 be /aterial.&s such, a defendant can be re3uired to sub/it to a test to eEtract virus fro/ his bod1 6as cited inPeople vs. Olvis, Supra7 the substance e/ittin% fro/ the bod1 of the accused "as received as evidencefor acts of lasciviousness 6:S vs. Tan Ten%, 0 Phil. -#$7 /orphine forced out of the /outh "asreceived as proof 6:S vs. On% Siu Hon%, 0+ Phil. *0$7 an order b1 the Bud%e for the "itness to put onpair of pants for si5e "as allo"ed 6People vs. Otadora, )+ Phil. ##7 and the court can co/pel a "o/an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_148220_2005.html#fnt55


13/117

1+

accused of adulter1 to sub/it for pre%nanc1 test 6Villaflor vs. Su//ers, #- Phil. +7, since the %ist ofthe privile%e is the restriction on 'testimonial compulsion.'$+

The polic1 of the @a/il1 !ode to liberali5e the rule on the investi%ation of the paternit1 and filiation ofchildren, especiall1 of ille%iti/ate children, is "ithout preBudice to the ri%ht of the putative parent toclai/ his or her o"n defenses.$*Fhere the evidence to aid this investi%ation is obtainable throu%h thefacilities of /odern science and technolo%1, such evidence should be considered subBect to the li/itsestablished b1 the la", rules, and Burisprudence.

=/EREFORE, "e DISMISS the petition. Fe &@@IRM the Decision of the !ourt of &ppeals dated =Nove/ber in !&'(.R. SP No. $=*++. Fe also &@@IRM the Orders dated 0 @ebruar1 and )


14/117

14

Fitness Nelson 2. Mel%ar declares in his affidavit as follo"s; He 4no"s respondent for the1 both residein NauBan, Oriental Mindoro. Respondent is 4no"n as a practicin% la"1er and a for/er Municipal Trial!ourt


15/117

1-

@INDIN(S;

The evidence of co/plainants to support their char%e of i//oralit1 consists in a7 the testi/oniesof Nelson Mel%ar and Ro/eo a1%o %iven b1 "a1 of affidavits eEecuted under oath and affir/edbefore the !o//ission and b7 their docu/entar1 evidence consistin% of their Ehibits G&G to GHG.

Respondent filed his co//ent throu%h counsel and did not for/all1 present or offer an1

evidence. Respondent opted not to present his evidence an1/ore because accordin% to hi/Gthere is none to rebut vis''vis the evidence presented b1 the private co/plainants.GRespondent instead sub/itted a /e/orandu/ throu%h counsel to ar%ue his position. &s can beseen fro/ the co//ent and /e/orandu/ sub/itted, respondent8s counsel ar%ues that theco/plaint is politicall1 /otivated since co/plainants are political rivals of respondent and thatthe birth certificates Ehibits GDG and GD'-G "hich "ere offered to sho" that respondent sired thechildren na/el1 Mara hrisna !har/ina dela @uente Mendo5a and M1rra hrisna Nor/ina dela@uente Mendo5a out of his cohabitation "ith Maril1n dela @uente are inad/issible because the1"ere alle%edl1 secured in violation of &d/inistrative Order No. -, Series of -==0. The rest of theeEhibits are either hearsa1 or self'servin% accordin% to respondent.

The "itnesses "ho are also t"o of the co/plainants herein, on the other hand, cate%oricall1 state intheir affidavits >Ehibits G&G and G2G? particularl1 in para%raph that GRespondent has been cohabitin%

openl1 and publicl1 "ith Maril1n de la @uente, representin% the/selves to be husband and "ife.G Inpara%raph - of said affidavits the "itnesses also cate%oricall1 state that Grespondent has evenrepresented to all and sundr1 that Maril1n de la @uente is his "ife.G These cate%orical state/ents /adeunder oath b1 co/plainants are not hearsa1 and re/ain un'rebutted. Respondent chose not to rebutthe/.

Ehibit G,G the !ertificate of !andidac1 eEecuted b1 respondent sho"s that respondent is /arried toone, @elicitas V. Valderia. &s sho"n b1 Ehibit GHG, a /arria%e certificate, Maril1n de la @uente is/arried to one, Ra/on (. Marcos. Dul1 certified true copies of said eEhibits have been presented b1co/plainants.

Fith respect to Ehibits GDG and GD'-G, "e believe that the1 are co/petent and relevant evidence andad/issible in this proceedin%s. The eEclusionar1 rule "hich bars ad/ission of ille%all1 obtained

evidence applies /ore appropriatel1 to evidence obtained as a result of ille%al searches and sei5ures.The instant case cannot be analo%ous to an ille%al search or sei5ure. & person "ho violates Rule # of&d/inistrative Order No. - Series of -==0 as cited b1 respondent ris4s the penalt1 of i/prison/ent orpa1/ent of a fine but it does not /a4e the docu/ent so issued inad/issible as evidence speciall1 inproceedin%s li4e the present case. Ehibits GDG and GD'-G "hich are dul1 certified birth certificates aretherefore co/petent evidence to sho" paternit1 of said children b1 respondent in the absence of an1evidence to the contrar1.

21 and lar%e the evidence of co/plainants consistin% of the testi/onies of "itnesses Nelson Mel%ar andRo/eo a1%o, and corroborated b1 the docu/entar1 eEhibits "ill sho" that indeed respondent hasbeen cohabitin% publicl1 "ith a certain Maril1n de la @uente "ho is not his "ife and that out of saidcohabitation respondent sired t"o children. These facts "e repeat have not been denied b1 respondentunder oath since he chose to Bust ar%ue on the basis of the i/proper /otivations and the

inad/issibilit1, hearsa1 and self'servin% nature of the docu/ents presented. !o/plainants havepresented evidence sufficient enou%h to convince us that indeed respondent has been cohabitin%publicl1 "ith a person "ho is not his "ife. The evidence ta4en to%ether "ill support the fact thatrespondent is not of %ood /oral character. That respondent chose not to den1 under oath the %raveand serious alle%ations /ade a%ainst hi/ is to our /ind his undoin% and his silence has not helped hisposition before the !o//ission. &s bet"een the docu/ents and positive state/ents of co/plainants,/ade under oath and the ar%u/ents and co//ents of respondent sub/itted throu%h his la"1ers,"hich "ere not verified under oath b1 respondent hi/self, "e are inclined and so %ive "ei%ht to theevidence of co/plainants. The direct and forthri%ht testi/onies and state/ents of Nelson Mel%ar andRo/eo a1%o that respondent "as openl1 cohabitin% "ith Maril1n de la @uente is not hearsa1. The"itnesses /a1 have ad/itted that respondent Mendo5a did not tell the/ that a certain Maril1n de la@uente "as his para/our 6for "h1 "ould respondent ad/it that to co/plainants7 but the "itnesses didstate clearl1 in their affidavits under oath that respondent "as cohabitin% "ith Maril1n de la @uente "ho

is not respondent8s "ife. &%ain their cate%orical state/ents ta4en to%ether "ith the other docu/ents,are enou%h to convince us and conclude that respondent is not of %ood /oral character.

Me/bers of the 2ar have been repeatedl1 re/inded that possession of %ood /oral character is acontinuin% condition for /e/bership in the 2ar in %ood standin%. The continued possession of %ood/oral character is a re3uisite condition for re/ainin% in the practice of la" >ortel vs. Aspiras- Phil.$)+ 6-=$+7 Cordova vs. Cordova-*= S!R& +) 6-=)=7 People vs. +uanda-)- S!R& +) 6-==7?. The/oral delin3uenc1 that affects the fitness of a /e/ber of the bar to continue as such includes conductthat outra%es the %enerall1 accepted /oral standards of the co//unit1, conduct for instance, "hich/a4es G/oc4er1 of the inviolable social institution of /arria%eG >MiBares vs. Villalu5 *# S!R& - 6-==*7?.


16/117

16

In the instant case respondent has disre%arded and /ade a /oc4er1 of the funda/ental institution of/arria%e. Respondent in fact even so stated in Ehibit G@G that he is separated fro/ his "ife. This factand state/ent "ithout an1 further eEplanation fro/ respondent onl1 contributes to the blot in his /oralcharacter "hich %ood /oral character "e repeat is a continuin% condition for a /e/ber to re/ain in%ood standin%. :nder Rule -.- of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit1, a la"1er shall not en%a%e inunla"ful, dishonest, i//oral or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated this rule a%ainst en%a%in% ini//oral conduct.

Fe a%ree, as cited b1 the respondent, "ith the pronounce/ent /ade in Santos vs. Dischoso, )# S!R&+ 6-=*)7 that courts should not be used b1 private persons particularl1 dis%runtled opponents to venttheir rancor on /e/bers of the 2ar throu%h unBust and unfounded accusations. Ho"ever, in the instantcase the char%es can hardl1 be considered as unfounded or unBust based on the evidence presented.

The evidence presented sho"s that respondent no lon%er possess 6sic7 that %ood /oral characternecessar1 as a condition for hi/ to re/ain a /e/ber of the 2ar in %ood standin%. He is therefore notentitled to continue to en%a%e in the practice of la".

Fe find such report and reco//endation of the I2P to be full1 supported b1 the pleadin%s and evidenceon record, and, hence, approve and adopt the sa/e.

The evidence presented b1 co/plainants reach that 3uantu/ of evidence re3uired in ad/inistrative

proceedin%s "hich is onl1 substantial evidence, or that a/ount of relevant evidence that a reasonable/ind /i%ht accept as ade3uate to support a conviction.-

Fitness Mel%ar8s testi/on1 that respondent had been publicl1 introducin% Maril1n dela @uente as his"ife is corroborated b1 the contents of an article in the &au0anews, introducin% respondent as one ofNauBan8s public servants, and statin% therein that respondent has been blessed "ith t"o beautifulchildren "ith his "ife, Maril1n dela @uente.-0It should be noted that said publication is under the controlof respondent, he bein% the !hair/an of the 2oard thereof. Thus, it could be reasonabl1 concluded thatif he contested the truth of the contents of subBect article in the &au0anews, or if he did not "ish topublicl1 present Maril1n dela @uente as his "ife, he could have easil1 ordered that the da/nin% portionsof said article to be edited out.

Fith re%ard to respondent8s ar%u/ent that the credibilit1 of "itnesses for the co/plainants is tainted

b1 the fact that the1 are /otivated b1 reven%e for respondent8s filin% of cri/inal cases a%ainst the/,"e opine that even if "itnesses Mel%ar and a1%o are so /otivated, the credibilit1 of their testi/oniescannot be discounted as the1 are full1 supported and corroborated b1 docu/entar1 evidence "hichspea4 for the/selves. The birth certificates of Mara hrisna !har/ina dela @uente Mendo5a and M1rrahrisna Nor/ina dela @uente Mendo5a born on


17/117

1

subBect birth certificates are relevant to the issue. The onl1 3uestion, therefore, is "hether the la" orthe rules provide for the inad/issibilit1 of said birth certificates alle%edl1 for havin% been obtained inviolation of Rule #, &d/inistrative Order No. -, series of -==0.

Note that Rule #, &d/inistrative Order No. -, series of -==0 onl1 provides for sanctions a%ainstpersons violatin% the rule on confidentialit1 of birth records, but no"here does it state that procure/entof birth records in violation of said rule "ould render said records inad/issible in evidence. On the otherhand, the Revised Rules of vidence onl1 provides for the eEclusion of evidence if it is obtained as aresult of ille%al searches and sei5ures. It should be e/phasi5ed, ho"ever, that said rule a%ainstunreasonable searches and sei5ures is /eant onl1 to protect a person fro/ interference b1 the%overn/ent or the state.-$In People vs. 2ipol,-+"e eEplained that;

The !onstitutional proscription enshrined in the 2ill of Ri%hts does not concern itself "ith therelation bet"een a private individual and another individual. It %overns the relationship bet"eenthe individual and the State and its a%ents. The 2ill of Ri%hts onl1 te/pers %overn/ental po"erand protects the individual a%ainst an1 a%%ression and un"arranted interference b1 an1depart/ent of %overn/ent and its a%encies. &ccordin%l1, it cannot be eEtended to the actsco/plained of in this case. The alle%ed G"arrantless searchG /ade b1 Ro3ue, a co'e/plo1ee ofappellant at the treasurer8s office, can hardl1 fall "ithin the a/bit of the constitutionalproscription on un"arranted searches and sei5ures.

!onse3uentl1, in this case "here co/plainants, as private individuals, obtained the subBect birthrecords as evidence a%ainst respondent, the protection a%ainst unreasonable searches and sei5uresdoes not appl1.

Since both Rule #, &d/inistrative Order No. -, series of -==0 and the Revised Rules on vidence donot provide for the eEclusion fro/ evidence of the birth certificates in 3uestion, said public docu/entsare, therefore, ad/issible and should be properl1 ta4en into consideration in the resolution of thisad/inistrative case a%ainst respondent.

Veril1, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara hrisna !har/ina dela @uente Mendo5a andM1rra hrisna Nor/ina dela @uente Mendo5a and respondent8s !ertificate of !andidac1 dated March =,-==$ "herein respondent hi/self declared he "as /arried to @elicitas Valderia, "ere never denied nor

rebutted b1 respondent. Hence, said public docu/ents sufficientl1 prove that he fathered t"o childrenb1 Maril1n dela @uente despite the fact that he "as still le%all1 /arried to @elicitas Valderia at that ti/e.

In 2ar Matter No. --$#,-*%ood /oral character "as defined thus;

. . . %ood /oral character is "hat a person reall1 is, as distin%uished fro/ %ood reputation orfro/ the opinion %enerall1 entertained of hi/, the esti/ate in "hich he is held b1 the public inthe place "here he is 4no"n. Moral character is not a subBective ter/ but one "hich correspondsto obBective realit1. The standard of personal and professional inte%rit1 is not satisfied b1 suchconduct as it /erel1 enables a person to escape the penalt1 of cri/inal la".

In3a#uirre vs. Castillo,-)"e reiterated the definition of i//oral conduct, to "it;

. . . that conduct "hich is so "illful, fla%rant, or sha/eless as to sho" indifference to the opinionof %ood and respectable /e/bers of the co//unit1. @urther/ore, such conduct /ust not onl1be i//oral, but %rossl1 i//oral. That is, it /ust be so corrupt as to constitute a cri/inal act orso unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a hi%h de%ree or co//itted under such scandalous orrevoltin% circu/stances as to shoc4 the co//on sense of decenc1.

In the above'3uoted case, "e pointed out that a /e/ber of the 2ar and officer of the court is not onl1re3uired to refrain fro/ adulterous relationships or the 4eepin% of /istresses but /ust also behavehi/self as to avoid scandali5in% the public b1 creatin% the belief that he is floutin% those /oralstandards and, thus, ruled that sirin% a child "ith a "o/an other than his "ife is a conduct "a1 belo"the standards of /oralit1 re3uired of ever1 la"1er.-=

Fe /ust rule in the sa/e "ise in this case before us. The fact that respondent continues to publicl1 andopenl1 cohabit "ith a "o/an "ho is not his le%al "ife, thus, sirin% children b1 her, sho"s his lac4 of%ood /oral character. Respondent should 4eep in /ind that the re3uire/ent of %ood /oral character isnot onl1 a condition precedent to ad/ission to the Philippine 2ar but is also a continuin% re3uire/ent to/aintain one8s %ood standin% in the le%al profession.InAldovino vs. Pu0alte, r.,-"e e/phasi5ed that;

This !ourt has been eEactin% in its de/and for inte%rit1 and %ood /oral character of /e/bersof the 2ar. The1 are eEpected at all ti/es to uphold the inte%rit1 and di%nit1 of the le%alprofession and refrain fro/ an1 act or o/ission "hich /i%ht lessen the trust and confidencereposed b1 the public in the fidelit1, honest1, and inte%rit1 of the le%al profession. Me/bershipin the le%al profession is a privile%e. &nd "henever it is /ade to appear that an attorne1 is no


18/117

18

lon%er "orth1 of the trust and confidence of the public, it beco/es not onl1 the ri%ht but also thedut1 of this !ourt, "hich /ade hi/ one of its officers and %ave hi/ the privile%e of /inisterin%"ithin its 2ar, to "ithdra" the privile%e.

=/EREFORE,respondent &tt1. Norberto M. Mendo5a is hereb1 found GUI(T'of i//oralit1, inviolation of Rule -.- of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit1. He is SUSPEN&E&IN&EFINITE('fro/ the practice of la" until he sub/its satisfactor1 proof that he has abandoned hisi//oral course of conduct.

et a cop1 of this resolution be served personall1 on respondent at his last 4no"n address and enteredin his record as attorne1. et the I2P, the 2ar !onfidant, and the !ourt &d/inistrator be furnished also acop1 of this resolution for their infor/ation and %uidance as "ell as for circulari5ation to all courts in thecountr1.

SO OR&ERE&.


Manila

SPECI%( T/IR& &IISION

G.R. No. 10-8+ Sep"eber 12, 200

ERNESTO M. FU((ERO, petitioner,vs.

PEOP(E OF T/E P/I(IPPINES,respondent.

& E C I S I O N

C/ICO*N%>%RIO,J.?

In this Petition for Revie" on Certiorariunder Rule #$ of the Revised Rules of !ourt,-petitioner rnestoM. @ullero see4s to set aside the Decisiondated -= October $ of the !ourt of &ppeals in !&'(.R. !R.No. )*, affir/in% in totothe Decision0dated = October 0 of the e%a5pi !it1 Re%ional Trial !ourt6RT!7, 2ranch +, in !ri/inal !ase No. **-, findin% petitioner %uilt1 of falsification of public docu/entas defined and penali5ed in para%raph #, &rticle -*- of the Revised Penal !ode.

In an &/ended Infor/ation#dated -# October -==*, petitioner "as char%ed "ith falsification of publicdocu/ent under para%raph #, &rticle -*- of the Revised Penal !ode, alle%edl1 co//itted as follo"s;

That so/eti/e in -=)), in the !it1 of e%a5pi, Philippines, and "ithin the Burisdiction of this

Honorable !ourt, the above'na/ed accused, "ith intent to preBudice and defraud, bein% then the&ctin% !hief Operator of Iri%a !it1 Teleco//unication8s Office, "hile actin% in said capacit1 andta4in% advanta%e of his official function, did then and there "illfull1, unla"full1 and feloniousl1falsif1 and9or caused to be falsified a %enuine public docu/ent, that is "hen he prepared his !S!- 6Personal Data Sheet7 for sub/ission to 2ureau of Teleco//unication Re%ional Office No. $,e%a5pi !it1, he /ade it appear that he passed the !ivil n%ineerin% 2oard Ea/inations %ivenb1 Professional Re%ulation !o//ission on Ma1 0 and 0-, -=)$ "ith a ratin% of *$.)L ho"ever,upon verification issued b1 PR!, said accused too4 the eEa/ination in Ma1 -=)# and anotherone >in? Ma1, -=)$ "ith %eneral ratin%s of $+.*$L and $+.-L respectivel1.

Fhen arrai%ned on $


19/117

19

& letter dated * March -=)) and si%ned b1 petitioner sho"s that he applied for the position of either a


20/117

20

FHTHR OR NOT TH HONOR&2 !O:RT O@ &PP&S RRD IN S:ST&ININ( TH


21/117

21

service and i/posin% upon hi/ a penalt1 of siE /onths suspension for falsif1in% his PDS "hich is alsothe subBect /atter of the instant case* 6)7 a certification sub/itted b1 the petitioner to the !S!,Re%ional Office No. $, e%a5pi !it1, sho"in% that he is a licensed civil en%ineer)6=7 the dail1 ti/erecords of Ma%istrado si%ned b1 petitioner as the for/er8s superior=and 6-7 other docu/ents bearin%the si%nature of petitioner in blue ballpen.0

On the other hand, the defense presented petitioner as its sole "itness. No docu/entar1 evidence "asproffered.

Petitioner interposed denials and alibi to support his contentions. Petitioner denied that he eEecutedand sub/itted the subBect PDS containin% the state/ent that he passed the board eEa/inations for civilen%ineerin%. He li4e"ise diso"ned the si%nature and thu/b/ar4 appearin% therein. He averred that thePDS he acco/plished and sub/itted "as t1pe"ritten in capital letters since his t1pe"riter does nothave s/all letters thus, the subBect PDS could not be his since the letters "ere t1pe"ritten in s/all andcapital letters that the stro4e of the si%nature appearin% in the PDS differs fro/ the stro4e of his%enuine si%nature that Ma%istrado had an ill /otive in filin% the instant case a%ainst hi/ since heissued a /e/orandu/ a%ainst her for the latter8s /isbehavior in the 2TO, Iri%a !it1 that he is not alicensed civil en%ineer and that he acco/plished a different PDS in the 2TO, Iri%a !it1.

Petitioner testified that he cannot recall the eEact date "hen he issued the alle%ed /e/orandu/

a%ainst Ma%istrado0-

and "hen durin% the trial of his perBur1 case a%ainst Ma%istrado, he clai/ed thathe is a licensed civil en%ineer.0He cannot also re/e/ber if he sub/itted a letter to the !S!, Re%ionalOffice No. $, e%a5pi !it1, appl1in% for the position of either a


22/117

22

the PDS and in the Dail1 Ti/e Records 6Ehibits G


23/117

2+

Thir%, petitioner8s state/ent in the PDS that he passed the civil en%ineerin% board eEa/ination %ivenon 0'0- Ma1 -=)$ in Manila "ith a ratin% of *$.)L is absolutel1 false. &s Officer'in'!har%e of theRecords Section of the PR!, Manila, @rancisco declared that petitioner "as included in the /aster list ofeEa/inees in the Ma1 -=)# civil en%ineerin% licensure eEa/ination "herein petitioner obtained a failin%%rade. She affir/ed that petitioner8s na/e also appears in the list of eEa/inees for the Ma1 -=)$ andMa1 -== civil en%ineerin% licensure eEa/inations "here petitioner also %ot failin% /ar4s. She alsosub/itted certifications and authentic docu/ents in support of her state/ents. @urther, petitionerad/itted that he never passed the board eEa/ination for civil en%ineerin%.$

(inall$, as a public officer, petitioner is dut1'bound to prepare, acco/plish and sub/it his PDSpursuant to the !ivil Service Rules and Re%ulations.$-Fere it not for his position and e/plo1/ent in the%overn/ent, he could not have acco/plished the PDS. In People v. 7y,$Santia%o :1, a field a%ent ofthe National 2ureau of Investi%ation, "as char%ed "ith falsification of public docu/ent under para%raph#, &rticle -*- of the Revised Penal !ode, for /a4in% false state/ents in his Personal Infor/ation Sheet.Fe ruled therein; ATa" "e #e7e!#a!" :Sa!"$a3o Uy< "oo) a#5a!"a3e o7 $ po$"$o! ay be3a"ere# 7ro "e 7a" "a" e $e7 7$e# "e $!7ora"$o! ee" $ ob5$ouy a "obe ub$""e# by ea a!# e5ery o77$er or epoyee o7 "e NBI.G In the sa/e vein, petitioneralso had the responsibilit1 to prepare, acco/plish and sub/it his PDS at the ti/e he /ade a falsestate/ent therein that he is a licensed civil en%ineer. Hence, it is clear that petitioner too4 advanta%e ofhis position as &ctin% !hief Operator of 2TO, Iri%a !it1 "hen he falsified his PDS.

&nent the second issue, petitioner posited that bein% a licensed civil en%ineer is not a 3ualification forhi/ to hold office and such is not a re3uire/ent for his pro/otion that the false state/ent caused nopreBudice to an1 private person as he did not have an1 co/petitor in his position nor "as the%overn/ent da/a%ed b1 such false state/ent that the false state/ent "ould not in an1 "a1 redoundto his benefit and, as such, no cri/inal intent could have i/pelled hi/ to /a4e such false clai/ andthat no evidence "as produced sho"in% that he had intent to cause inBur1.

The la" is clear that "ron%ful intent on the part of the accused to inBure a third person is not anessential ele/ent of the cri/e of falsification of public docu/ent. $0It is Burisprudentiall1 settled that inthe falsification of public or official docu/ents, "hether b1 public officers or private persons, it is notnecessar1 that there be present the idea of %ain or the intent to inBure a third person for the reasonthat, in contradistinction to private docu/ents, the principal thin% punished is the violation of the public

faith and the destruction of truth as therein sole/nl1 proclai/ed.$#

In falsification of public docu/ents,therefore, the controllin% consideration is the public character of a docu/ent and the eEistence of an1preBudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such da/a%e beco/es i//aterial.$$

The fact that the petitioner8s false state/ent in the PDS did not redound to his benefit, and that the%overn/ent or an1 private individual "as not thereb1 preBudiced, is inconse3uential. Fhat is clear anddecisive in this case is that petitioner /ade an entr1 in his PDS that he passed the 0'0- Ma1 -=)$board eEa/ination for civil en%ineerin% despite his full a"areness that such is not true.

Re%ardin% the third issue, petitioner contended that the prosecution8s docu/entar1 evidence,consistin% of Ehibits &, !, @, (, H, I,


24/117

24

these docu/ents to a hand"ritin% eEpert for eEa/ination instead of rel1in% on the testi/on1 ofMa%istrado.$+

Section 0+, Rule -0 of the Revised Rules on vidence, states that a "itness can testif1 onl1 to thosefacts "hich he 4no"s of or co/es fro/ his personal 4no"led%e, that is, "hich are derived fro/ hisperception. & "itness, therefore, /a1 not testif1 as to "hat he /erel1 learned fro/ others eitherbecause he "as told, or he read or heard the sa/e. Such testi/on1 is considered hearsa1 and /a1 notbe received as proof of the truth of "hat he has learned. $*This is 4no"n as the hearsa1 rule.

The la", ho"ever, provides for specific eEceptions to the hearsa1 rule. One of the eEceptions is theentries in official records /ade in the perfor/ance of dut1 b1 a public officer. $)In other "ords, officialentries are ad/issible in evidence re%ardless of "hether the officer or person "ho /ade the/ "aspresented and testified in court, since these entries are consideredprima facie evidence of the factsstated therein. Other reco%ni5ed reasons for this eEception are necessit1 and trust"orthiness. Thenecessit1 consists in the inconvenience and difficult1 of re3uirin% the official8s attendance as a "itnessto testif1 to innu/erable transactions in the course of his dut1. This "ill also undul1 ha/per publicbusiness. The trust"orthiness consists in the presu/ption of re%ularit1 of perfor/ance of official dut1b1 a public officer.$=

E;$b$" %, or the !ertification of the PR! dated -*


25/117

2-

"itness has acted or has been char%ed, and has thus ac3uired 4no"led%e of the hand"ritin% of suchperson. Moreover, the opinion of a non'eEpert "itness, for "hich proper basis is %iven, /a1 be receivedin evidence re%ardin% the hand"ritin% or si%nature of a person "ith "hich he has sufficient fa/iliarit1.+$

The e%a5pi !it1 RT! "as, therefore, not obli%ed to put a hand"ritin% eEpert on the "itness stand anddirect the latter to eEa/ine petitioner8s si%natures in the fore%oin% eEhibits before rulin% on theirad/issibilit1. It can, as it did, rel1 on the testi/onies of the prosecution "itnesses "ho are fa/iliar "ithpetitioner8s hand"ritin%9si%nature in deter/inin% the ad/issibilit1 of the aforesaid eEhibits. It can, b1itself, also co/pare petitioner8s si%nature in the PDS "ith the petitioner8s si%natures in the subBecteEhibits "ith or "ithout the aid of an eEpert "itness and thereafter rule on the ad/issibilit1 of sucheEhibits based on its o"n observation. In short, it can eEercise independent Bud%/ent as re%ards thead/issibilit1 of said eEhibits.

&s to the fourth issue, petitioner ar%ued that since none of the prosecution "itnesses testified that the1actuall1 sa" hi/ fill up the PDS, then there is no evidence sho"in% that the alle%ed falsification too4place in e%a5pi !it1 that "hen the PDS "as alle%edl1 falsified, he "as stationed at 2TO, Iri%a !it1, and"as a resident of Iri%a !it1 that, even assu/in% "ithout ad/ittin% that he filled up the PDS, the sa/e"as, Gin all probabilit1,G filled up in Iri%a !it1 and, as such, the cri/e of falsification "as consu//atedtherein that, conse3uentl1, the instant case should have been tried in the Iri%a !it1 RT! and not in thee%a5pi !it1 RT!.++

There are three i/portant re3uisites "hich /ust be present before a court can ac3uire Burisdiction overcri/inal cases. First, the court /ust have Burisdiction over the offense or the subBect /atter. Second,the court /ust ha

evidence - cases - set 1 complete.doc

Documents