Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
00 (Answer with
SUPREME COURT square meters, respectively. Counterclaim, Records, pp. 48-51).
Manila Devoted to the production of palay,
the lots were tenanted and For his part, defendant Mendoza
SECOND DIVISION cultivated by Julian dela Cruz, raised abandonment, sublease and
husband of plaintiff Eufrocina dela mortgage of the farm lots without
Cruz. Julian died on September 25, his consent and approval, and non-
1979. payment of rentals, irrigation fees
and other taxes due the
G.R. No. 96492 November 26, 1992
In her complaint, Eufrocina alleged government, as his defenses. He
that upon the death of Julian, she also demanded actual and
ROMEO REYES, ANGEL PARAYAO, and succeeded him as bona fidetenant exemplary damages, as well as
EMILIO MANANGHAYA, petitioners, of the subject lots; that between attorney's fees (Answer, pp. 77-78).
vs. July 7 to July 15, 1984, Olympio
THE COURT OF APPEALS, EUFROCINA DE Mendoza, in conspiracy with the During the pendency of the case in
LA CRUZ and VIOLETA DELOS other defendants, prevented her the lower court, Mendoza of the
REYES, respondents. daughter Violeta and her workers case in the lower court, Mendoza
through force, intimidation, was in possession of the subject
strategy and stealth, from entering lots and had cultivated the same.
and working on the subject Upon motion of plaintiff, the court
NOCON, J.: premises; and that until the filing of directed its Deputy Sheriff to
the instant case, defendants had supervise the harvesting of the
Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio refused to vacate and surrender the palay crops, to cause the threshing
Mananghaya question the respondent Court's decision lots, thus violating her tenancy thereof and to deposit the net
promulgated on November 22, 1990, 1 which rights. Plaintiff therefore prayed for harvest (after deducting from the
affirmed with modification the agrarian court's judgment for the recovery of expenses incurred), in a bonded
decision promulgated January 10, 1990, 2 which possession and damages with a writ warehouse of the locality subject to
ordered them and the other defendants therein to, of preliminary mandatory the disposition of the court. 3
among others, restore possession of the disputed injunction in the meantime.
landholding to private respondent, Eufrocina Vda. The respondent Court rendered judgment affirming
dela Cruz. Said respondent court's decision is now Defendants Reyes, Parayao, the appealed agrarian court's decision with the
final and executory as to Olympio Mendoza and Aguinaldo and Mananghaya, duly modification that Lot 106 is not covered by it.
Severino Aguinaldo, the other petitioners in the elected and/or appointed barangay
respondent court, since they did not appeal the same. officials of Bahay Pare, Candaba,
The dispositive portion of the appealed decision,
Pampanga, denied interference in which was modified, states as follows:
Since petitioners do not dispute the findings of fact of the tenancy relationship existing
the respondent Court, the same shall be quoted between plaintiff and defendant
Mendoza, particularly in the WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
verbatim and are as follows: rendered, in favor of plaintiff and
cultivation of the latter's farm lots.
Claiming that they have always against defendants:
It appears from the records that
exercised fairness, equity, reason
Juan Mendoza, father of herein On the Mandatory Injunction:
and impartiality in the discharge of
defendant Olympio Mendoza, is the
their official functions, they asked
owner of Farm Lots Nos. 46 and
for the dismissal of the case and 1. Ordering said defendants to
106, Block 2, Psd-38453 of the
claimed moral damages and restore possession of the
Bahay Pare Estate, Bahay Pare,
attorney's fees in the total amount landholding subject of the action to
Candaba, Pampanga, with an area
the plaintiff and enjoining said finally vacate and surrender and not Lot No. 106 of the estate, which lot was
defendants and any person claiming possession and cultivation of the purchased by petitioner Romeo Reyes from Olympio
under them to desist from landholding in question to plaintiff. Mendoza's father, Juan, and which he later donated to
molesting them or interfering with the barangay Bahay Pare of Candaba, Pampanga, for
the possession and cultivation of c) the prayer for moral damages, the construction of the Bahay Pare Barangay High
the landholding descriptive in not having been sufficiently School. 6 As to their supposed participation in the
paragraph 3 of the complaint, to proved, the same is denied. dispossession of private respondent from the disputed
wit: landholding, petitioners present the September 30,
d) Ordering defendants jointly and 1987 Resolution of Investigating Fiscal Jesus M.
Farm Lots Nos. Pamintuan, as approved by Pampanga Provincial
severally, to pay the costs of suit.
46 and 106, Fiscal Villamor I. Dizon, in I.S. No. 8576, 7 wherein
Block 2, Psd- private respondent's complaint against petitioners and
The awards herein provided should the other defendants in the agrarian court for
38453 of the first be satisfied from the deposits
Bahay Pare violation of P.D. 583 8 was dismissed, to show that
of the harvests ordered by the Court private respondent's "point is already settled and
Estate, Bahay
from which the planting and considered closed." 9 lastly, petitioners claim that
Pare, Candaba,
harvesting expenses have been paid they were included in the present controversy so that
Pampanga, with a
to defendant Olympio Mendoza; their political career would be destroyed.10
total area of
and if said net deposits with the
23,969 square Court or the warehouses as ordered
meters, more or by the Court are insufficient, then Private respondents deny petitioners' allegations and
less, owned by a contend that it was petitioners who conspired with
the balance should be paid by
certain Juan Olympio Mendoza and Severino Aguinaldo in
defendants, jointly and severally. 4
Mendoza, and ejecting them not only from Lot No. 46 but also from
devoted Lot No. 106. They maintain that it was in Farmlot
principally to the Defendants who are the petitioners in this case, in a No. 46 from where they were ejected and
production of Petition for Review on Certiorari, present for the dispossessed, so much so that even if Farmlot No.
palay, as consideration of the Court: 106 was removed by the Court of Appeals from the
evidenced by a judgment, as Farmlot No. 46 was harvesting palay
Certification [T]he lone issue of whether or not worth at least P33,000.00 per year since 1989, private
from the Ministry they can be held liable, jointly and respondents, who are entitled to the possession and
of Agrarian severally, with the other peaceful enjoyment of the farmlot as provided for in
Reform issued on defendants, for the harvests of the Section 23 of the Agrarian Reform Law, should be
July 30, 1984. litigated property, Lot No. 46, or compensated for the lost income by the petitioners
the money equivalent thereof who are solidarily liable with Olympio Mendoza and
2. a) Ordering the defendants to starting from the principal crop Severino Aguinaldo. 11
vacate the premises of the two years of 1984 and every harvest
landholding in question and to time thereafter until the possession We find for the private respondents.
respect the tenancy rights of and cultivation of the aforestated
plaintiff with respect to the same; landholding are finally surrendered
It is clear that petitioners are asking Us to re-examine
to the private respondent. 5
all the evidence already presented and evaluated by
b) Ordering defendants, jointly and the trial court and re-evaluated again by the
severally to pay unto plaintiff 220 It is the position of petitioners that they are not liable respondent appellate court. Said evidence served as
cavans of palay or its equivalent in jointly and severally with Olympio Mendoza and basis in arriving at the trial court and appellate court's
cash of P33,000.00 from the Severino Aguinaldo because the present petition findings of fact. We shall not analyze such evidence
principal crop year of 1984, and involves Lot No. 46, Block 2, Psd-38453 of the all over again but instead put finis to the factual
every harvest time until defendants bahay Pare Estate, bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga findings in this case. Settled is the rule that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for dispossession of appellee. They not necessarily
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of only knew Olympio personally, import
Court 12 absent the exceptions which do not obtain in some of them were even asked by preponderant
the instant case. 13 Olympio to help him cultivate the evidence, as is
land, thus lending credence to the required in an
We agree with the appellate court in its retiocination, allegation that defendant Olympio, ordinary civil
which We adopt, on why it has to dismiss the appeal. together with his co-defendants, case. It has been
Said the Court: prevented plaintiff and her workers defined to be
from entering the land through such relevant
"strong arm methods". (Decision of evidence as a
In her Complaint, plaintiff-appellee
RTC, records, vol. II p. 564). reasonable mind
alleged that she "is the tenant of
might accept as
Farm Lots Nos. 46 and 106 Block
Finally, we rule that the trial court adequate to
2, Psd-38453 of the Bahay Pare
Estate, Bahay Pare, Candaba, did not err when it favorably support a
Pampanga, with a total area of considered the affidavits of conclusion and
Eufrocina and Efren Tecson its absence is not
23,969 square meters, more or less
(Annexes "B" and "C") although shown by
. . ." (Complaint, Record, vol. 1,
the affiants were not presented and stressing that
p.1). However, during Violeta's
subjected to cross-examination. there is contrary
testimony, she clarified that
actually only Lot No. 106, which Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 evidence on
contains an area of P19,000 square provides that the "Rules of Court record, direct or
shall not be applicable in agrarian circumstantial,
meters, is not included in this
cases even in a suppletory for the appellate
controversy (T.S.N., August 10,
character." The same provision court cannot
1989, p. 5; May 8, 1989, p. 12).
This statement was corroborated by states that "In the hearing, substitute its own
plaintiff's counsel, Atty. Arturo investigation and determination of judgment or
any question or controversy, criteria for that of
Rivera, who informed the court that
affidavits and counter-affidavits the trial court in
the 19,000 square meter lot is
may be allowed and are admissible determining
subject of a pending case before the
in evidence". wherein lies the
MTC of Sta. Ana, Pampanga
(Ibid.,p. 15). The inconsistency weight of
between the averment of the Moreover, in agrarian cases, the evidence or what
evidence is
complaint and the testimony of the quantum of evidence required is no
entitled to
witness should not only because more than substantial evidence.
belief. 14
there was no showing that she This substantial evidence rule was
intended to mislead defendants and incorporated in section 18, P.D.
even the trial court on the subject No. 946 which took effect on June WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
matter of the suit. It would in the 17, 1976 (Castro vs. CS, G.R. No. decision appealed from, the petition is hereby
complaint since together with Lot 34613, January 26, 1989). In DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court
106 had been include in the Bagsican vs. Hon. Court of of Appeals promulgated on November 22, 1990 is
complaint since together with Lot Appeals, 141 SCRA 226, the AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioners.
46, it is owned by Olympio's father. Supreme Court defined what
substantial evidence is: SO ORDERED.
We also concur with the trial
court's finding on the participation Substantial
of the other appellants in the evidence does not
THIRD DIVISION capacity and even suggested to have the child hitting any part of her body.[9] Finally, Arnel claimed
committed for adoption. Arnel also denied having that the signature and the community tax certificate
fathered the child. (CTC) attributed to him in the acknowledgment of
Martins birth certificate were falsified. The CTC
On January 19, 2001, while Fe was carrying erroneously reflected his marital status as single
[G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005]
five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf and when he was actually married and that his birth year
Country Club parking lot, Arnel sped off in his van, was 1965 when it should have been 1964.[10]
with the open car door hitting Fes leg. This incident
was reported to the police. In July 2001, Fe was In his pre-trial brief filed on May 17, 2002,
ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. diagnosed with leukemia and has, since then, been Arnel vehemently denied having sired Martin but
COURT OF APPEALS AND MINOR undergoing chemotherapy. On March 5, 2002, Fe and expressed willingness to consider any proposal to
MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, Martin sued Arnel for support.[6] settle the case.[11]
REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA In his amended answer, Arnel denied having On July 23, 2002, Fe and Martin moved for the
PROLLAMANTE, respondents. sired Martin because his affair and intimacy with Fe issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit
had allegedly ended in 1998, long before Martins themselves to DNA paternity testing pursuant to Rule
DECISION conception. He claimed that Fe had at least one other 28 of the Rules of Court.[12]
secret lover. Arnel admitted that their relationship
CORONA, J.: started in 1993 but he never really fell in love with Arnel opposed said motion by invoking his
(Fe) not only because (she) had at least one secret constitutional right against self-incrimination.[13] He
lover, a certain Jun, but also because she proved to be also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause
At issue in this petition for certiorari [1] is
scheming and overly demanding and possessive. As a of action, considering that his signature on the birth
whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely
result, theirs was a stormy on-and-off affair. What certificate was a forgery and that, under the law, an
erred in exercising its discretion, amounting to lack
started as a romantic liaison between two consenting illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not
or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing a decision[2] and
adults eventually turned out to be a case of fatal recognized by the putative father.[14] In his motion,
resolution[3] upholding the resolution and order of the
attraction where (Fe) became so obsessed with Arnel manifested that he had filed criminal charges
trial court,[4] which denied petitioners motion to
(Arnel), to the point of even entertaining the idea of for falsification of documents against Fe (I.S. Nos.
dismiss private respondents complaint for support
marrying him, that she resorted to various devious 02-5723 and 02-7192) and a petition for cancellation
and directed the parties to submit themselves to
ways and means to alienate (him) from his wife and of his name appearing in Martins birth certificate
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) paternity testing.
family. Unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-46669). He
Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin and children, Arnel terminated the affair although he attached the certification of the Philippine National
Prollamante sued Martins alleged biological father, still treated her as a friend such as by referring Police Crime Laboratory that his signature in the
petitioner Arnel L. Agustin, for support and potential customers to the car aircon repair birth certificate was forged.
support pendente lite before the Regional Trial Court shop[7] where she worked. Later on, Arnel found out The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 106.[5] that Fe had another erstwhile secret lover. In May complaint and ordered the parties to submit
In their complaint, respondents alleged that 2000, Arnel and his entire family went to the United themselves to DNA paternity testing at the expense
Arnel courted Fe in 1992, after which they entered States for a vacation. Upon their return in June 2000, of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
into an intimate relationship. Arnel supposedly Arnel learned that Fe was telling people that he had trial court.
impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday on November 10, impregnated her. Arnel refused to acknowledge the
child as his because their last intimacy was sometime Thus, this petition.
1999. Despite Arnels insistence on abortion, Fe
decided otherwise and gave birth to their child out of in 1998.[8] Exasperated, Fe started calling Arnels wife
In a nutshell, petitioner raises two issues: (1)
wedlock, Martin, on August 11, 2000 at the Capitol and family. On January 19, 2001, Fe followed Arnel
whether a complaint for support can be converted to a
Medical Hospital in Quezon City. The babys birth to the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking
petition for recognition and (2) whether DNA
certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the lot to demand that he acknowledge Martin as his
paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for
father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital child. According to Arnel, he could not get through
support without violating petitioners constitutional
expenses but later refused Fes repeated requests for Fe and the discussion became so heated that he had
right to privacy and right against self-
Martins support despite his adequate financial no alternative but to move on but without bumping or
incrimination.[15]
The petition is without merit. The petitioners contentions are without merit. The question whether a person in the position of the
present plaintiff can in any event maintain a complex
First of all, the trial court properly denied the The assailed resolution and order did not action to compel recognition as a natural child and at
petitioners motion to dismiss because the private convert the action for support into one for recognition the same time to obtain ulterior relief in the character
respondents complaint on its face showed that they but merely allowed the respondents to prove their of heir, is one which in the opinion of this court must
had a cause of action against the petitioner. The cause of action against petitioner who had been be answered in the affirmative, provided always that
elements of a cause of action are: (1) the plaintiffs denying the authenticity of the documentary evidence the conditions justifying the joinder of the two
primary right and the defendants corresponding of acknowledgement. But even if the assailed distinct causes of action are present in the particular
primary duty, and (2) the delict or wrongful act or resolution and order effectively integrated an action case. In other words, there is no absolute necessity
omission of the defendant, by which the primary right to compel recognition with an action for support, requiring that the action to compel
and duty have been violated. The cause of action is such was valid and in accordance with jurisprudence. acknowledgment should have been instituted and
determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by In Tayag v. Court of Appeals,[20] we allowed the prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the
the facts alleged.[16] integration of an action to compel recognition with an action in which that same plaintiff seeks
action to claim ones inheritance: additional relief in the character of heir. Certainly,
In the complaint, private respondents alleged
that Fe had amorous relations with the petitioner, as a there is nothing so peculiar to the action to compel
result of which she gave birth to Martin out of In Paulino, we held that an illegitimate child, to be acknowledgment as to require that a rule should be
wedlock. In his answer, petitioner admitted that he entitled to support and successional rights from the here applied different from that generally applicable
had sexual relations with Fe but denied that he putative or presumed parent, must prove his filiation in other cases. x x x
fathered Martin, claiming that he had ended the to the latter. We also said that it is necessary to allege
relationship long before the childs conception and in the complaint that the putative father had The conclusion above stated, though not heretofore
birth. It is undisputed and even admitted by the acknowledged and recognized the illegitimate child explicitly formulated by this court, is undoubtedly to
parties that there existed a sexual relationship because such acknowledgment is essential to and is some extent supported by our prior decisions.
between Arnel and Fe. The only remaining question the basis of the right to inherit. There being no Thus, we have held in numerous cases, and the
is whether such sexual relationship produced the allegation of such acknowledgment, the action doctrine must be considered well settled, that a
child, Martin. If it did, as respondents have alleged, becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be natural child having a right to compel
then Martin should be supported by his father Arnel. brought after the death of the putative father. acknowledgment, but who has not been in fact
If not, petitioner and Martin are strangers to each The ratio decidendi in Paulino, therefore, is not the legally acknowledged, may maintain partition
other and Martin has no right to demand and absence of a cause of action for failure of the proceedings for the division of the inheritance
petitioner has no obligation to give support. petitioner to allege the fact of acknowledgment in the against his coheirs x x x; and the same person may
complaint, but the prescription of the action. intervene in proceedings for the distribution of the
Preliminaries aside, we now tackle the main estate of his deceased natural father, or mother x x x.
issues. Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, In neither of these situations has it been thought
although petitioner contends that the complaint filed necessary for the plaintiff to show a prior decree
Petitioner refuses to recognize Martin as his
by herein private respondent merely alleges that the compelling acknowledgment. The obvious reason is
own child and denies the genuineness and
minor Chad Cuyugan is an illegitimate child of the that in partition suits and distribution proceedings the
authenticity of the childs birth certificate which he
deceased and is actually a claim for inheritance, from other persons who might take by inheritance are
purportedly signed as the father. He also claims that
the allegations therein the same may be considered as before the court; and the declaration of heirship is
the order and resolution of the trial court, as affirmed
one to compel recognition. Further, that the two appropriate to such proceedings. (Underscoring
by the Court of Appeals, effectively converted the
complaint for support to a petition for recognition, causes of action, one to compel recognition and the supplied)
which is supposedly proscribed by law. According to other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one
complaint is not new in our jurisprudence. Although the instant case deals with support
petitioner, Martin, as an unrecognized child, has no
right to ask for support and must first establish his rather than inheritance, as in Tayag, the basis or
filiation in a separate suit under Article 283[17] in As early as [1922] we had occasion to rule thereon rationale for integrating them remains the same.
relation to Article 265[18] of the Civil Code and in Briz vs. Briz, et al. (43 Phil. 763 [1922]) wherein Whether or not respondent Martin is entitled to
Section 1, Rule 105[19] of the Rules of Court. we said: support depends completely on the determination of
filiation. A separate action will only result in a
multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long
main issues in both cases are. To (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match
paraphrase Tayag, the declaration of filiation is capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing vs.
entirely appropriate to these proceedings. repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the Court of Appeals, this Court has acknowledged the
fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) strong weight of DNA testing
On the second issue, petitioner posits that DNA copies, one copy from the mother and the other from
is not recognized by this Court as a conclusive means the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged
of proving paternity. He also contends that Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v.
father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Yatar,[27] we affirmed the conviction of the accused
compulsory testing violates his right to privacy and Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use
right against self-incrimination as guaranteed under for rape with homicide, the principal evidence for
of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. which included DNA test results. We did a lengthy
the 1987 Constitution. These contentions have no Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts
merit. discussion of DNA, the process of DNA testing and
should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of the reasons for its admissibility in the context of our
Given that this is the very first time that the DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should own Rules of Evidence:
admissibility of DNA testing as a means for apply the results of science when competently
determining paternity has actually been the focal obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject
Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that
issue in a controversy, a brief historical sketch of our said result is to deny progress.
encodes the genetic information in all living
past decisions featuring or mentioning DNA testing is organisms. A persons DNA is the same in each cell
called for. The first real breakthrough of DNA as and it does not change throughout a persons lifetime;
admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine the DNA in a persons blood is the same as the DNA
In the 1995 case of People v. jurisprudence came in 2002 with our en found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of
Teehankee[21] where the appellant was convicted of banc decision in People v. Vallejo[24] where the rape hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal
murder on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, we and murder victims DNA samples from the and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of
stated as an obiter dictum that while eyewitness bloodstained clothes of the accused were admitted in polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two
identification is significant, it is not as accurate and evidence. We reasoned that the purpose of DNA individuals have the same DNA, with the notable
authoritative as the scientific forms of identification testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exception of identical twins.
evidence such as the fingerprint or the DNA test exist(ed) between the evidence sample and the
result (emphasis supplied). reference sample. The samples collected (were)
xxx xxx xxx
Our faith in DNA testing, however, was not subjected to various chemical processes to establish
quite so steadfast in the previous decade. In Pe Lim v. their profile.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
Court of Appeals,[22] promulgated in 1997, we A year later, in People v. Janson,[25] we courts should consider, inter alia, the following
cautioned against the use of DNA because DNA, acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of factors: how the samples were collected, how they
being a relatively new science, (had) not as yet been evidence because doubts persist(ed) in our mind as to were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity who (were) the real malefactors. Yes, a complex samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
(would) still have to be resolved by such offense (had) been perpetrated but who (were) the samples, whether proper standards and procedures
conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or other were followed in conducting the tests, and the
acts, verbal and written, by the putative father. scientific evidence to still our doubts! qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
In 2001, however, we opened the possibility of In 2004, in Tecson, et al. v.
admitting DNA as evidence of parentage, as COMELEC[26] where the Court en banc was faced In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de
enunciated in Tijing v. Court of Appeals:[23] with the issue of filiation of then presidential Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an
candidate Fernando Poe Jr., we stated: expert witness on DNA print or identification
A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungrias testimony, it
conventional methods unless we adopt the modern was determined that the gene type and DNA profile
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be of appellant are identical to that of the extracts
and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be
now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for subject of examination. The blood sample taken from
difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines the appellant showed that he was of the following
identification and parentage testing. The University genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
gene types: vWA 15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP29/10 and Sections 12 and 17 of Article III of the Constitution. Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of
CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken We addressed this as follows: legality of searches and seizures,[37] and the
from the victims vaginal canal. Verily, a DNA match infringement of privacy of communication[38] where
exists between the semen found in the victim and the The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is the constitutional right to privacy has been critically
blood sample given by the appellant in open court not against all compulsion, but against testimonial at issue. Petitioners case involves neither and, as
during the course of the trial. compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is already stated, his argument that his right against
simply against the legal process of extracting from self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water. His
Admittedly, we are just beginning to integrate these the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does hollow invocation of his constitutional rights elicits
advances in science and technology in the Philippine not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded no sympathy here for the simple reason that they are
criminal justice system, so we must be cautious as we is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case,
traverse these relatively uncharted waters. an accused whose very life is at stake can be
Fortunately, we can benefit from the wealth of compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no
Over the years, we have expressly excluded
persuasive jurisprudence that has developed in other reason why, in this civil case, petitioner herein who
several kinds of object evidence taken from the
jurisdictions. Specifically, the prevailing doctrine in person of the accused from the realm of self- does not face such dire consequences cannot be
the U.S. has proven instructive. incrimination. These include ordered to do the same.
photographs,[28]hair,[29] and other bodily DNA paternity testing first came to prominence
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow (509 U.S. 579 (1993); substances.[30] We have also declared as in the United States, where it yielded its first official
125 L. Ed. 2d 469) it was ruled that pertinent constitutional several procedures performed on the results sometime in 1985. In the decade that
evidence based on scientifically valid principles accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused followed, DNA rapidly found widespread general
could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. of adultery,[31]expulsion of morphine from ones acceptance.[39] Several cases decided by various State
Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater mouth[32] and the tracing of ones foot to determine its Supreme Courts reflect the total assimilation of DNA
discretion over which testimony they would allow at identity with bloody footprints.[33] In Jimenez v. testing into their rules of procedure and evidence.
trial, including the introduction of new kinds of Caizares,[34] we even authorized the examination of a
scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel womans genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by The case of Wilson v. Lumb[40] shows that DNA
procedure. her husband, to verify his claim that she was testing is so commonly accepted that, in some
impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. instances, ordering the procedure has become a
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather ministerial act. The Supreme Court of St. Lawrence
relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in invasive and involuntary, but all of them were County, New York allowed a party who had already
its existence or non-existence. Applying constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, acknowledged paternity to subsequently challenge his
the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence per our ruling in Yatar,[35] are now similarly prior acknowledgment. The Court pointed out that,
obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR acceptable. under the law, specifically Section 516 of the New
analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a York Family Court Act, the Family Court examiner
Nor does petitioners invocation of his right to had the duty, upon receipt of the challenge, to order
quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably privacy persuade us. In Ople v. Torres,[36] where we
based on scientifically valid principles of human DNA tests:[41]
struck down the proposed national computerized
genetics and molecular biology. identification system embodied in Administrative 516-a. Acknowledgment of paternity. (a) An
Order No. 308, we said: acknowledgment of paternity executed pursuant to
Significantly, we upheld the constitutionality of
compulsory DNA testing and the admissibility of the section one hundred eleven-k of the social services
In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-
results thereof as evidence. In that case, DNA right to privacy does not bar all incursions into
samples from semen recovered from a rape victims b of the public health law shall establish the paternity
individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to
vagina were used to positively identify the accused scientific and technological advancements that
Joel Kawit Yatar as the rapist. Yatar claimed that the this act. Such acknowledgment must be reduced to
enhance public service and the common good... writing and filed pursuant to section four thousand
compulsory extraction of his blood sample for DNA Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by
testing, as well as the testing itself, violated his right one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law
proper safeguards that enhance public service and the with the registrar of the district in which the birth
against self-incrimination, as embodied in both common good. occurred and in which the birth certificate has been
filed. No further judicial or administrative acknowledgment is in receipt of child support where no timely objection in writing has been made
proceedings are required to ratify an unchallenged services pursuant to title six-A of article three of the thereto and that if such timely objections are not
acknowledgment of paternity. social services law, the court shall immediately made, they shall be deemed waived and shall not be
provide a copy of the order to the child support heard by the court. If the record or report of the
(b) An acknowledgment of paternity executed enforcement unit of the social services district that results of any such genetic marker or DNA test or
pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the provides the mother with such services. tests indicate at least a ninety-five percent
social services law or section four thousand one probability of paternity, the admission of such
hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law may be (c) A determination of paternity made by any other record or report shall create a rebuttable
rescinded by either signators filing of a petition with state, whether established through the parents presumption of paternity, and shall establish, if
the court to vacate the acknowledgment within the acknowledgment of paternity or through an unrebutted, the paternity of and liability for the
earlier of sixty days of the date of signing the administrative or judicial process, must be accorded support of a child pursuant to this article and
acknowledgment or the date of an administrative or a full faith and credit, if and only if such article four of this act.
judicial proceeding (including a proceeding to acknowledgment meets the requirements set forth in
establish a support order) relating to the child in section 452(a)(7) of the social security act. (b) Whenever the court directs a genetic marker or
which either signator is a party. For purposes of this (emphasis supplied) DNA test pursuant to this section, a report made as
section, the "date of an administrative or a judicial provided in subdivision (a) of this section may be
proceeding" shall be the date by which the DNA testing also appears elsewhere in the New received in evidence pursuant to rule forty-five
respondent is required to answer the petition. After York Family Court Act:[42] hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules if
the expiration of sixty days of the execution of the offered by any party.
acknowledgment, either signator may challenge the 532. Genetic marker and DNA tests; admissibility of
acknowledgment of paternity in court only on the records or reports of test results; costs of tests. (c) The cost of any test ordered pursuant to
basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, subdivision (a) of this section shall be, in the first
with the burden of proof on the party challenging the a) The court shall advise the parties of their right to instance, paid by the moving party. If the moving
voluntary acknowledgment. Upon receiving a one or more genetic marker tests or DNA tests and, party is financially unable to pay such cost, the court
partys challenge to an acknowledgment, the court on the courts own motion or the motion of any party, may direct any qualified public health officer to
shall order genetic marker tests or DNA tests for shall order the mother, her child and the alleged conduct such test, if practicable; otherwise, the court
the determination of the childs paternity and shall father to submit to one or more genetic marker or may direct payment from the funds of the appropriate
make a finding of paternity, if appropriate, in DNA tests of a type generally acknowledged as local social services district. In its order of
accordance with this article. Neither signators legal reliable by an accreditation body designated by the disposition, however, the court may direct that the
obligations, including the obligation for child support secretary of the federal department of health and cost of any such test be apportioned between the
arising from the acknowledgment, may be suspended human services and performed by a laboratory parties according to their respective abilities to pay or
during the challenge to the acknowledgment except approved by such an accreditation body and by the be assessed against the party who does not prevail on
for good cause as the court may find. If a party commissioner of health or by a duly qualified the issue of paternity, unless such party is financially
petitions to rescind an acknowledgment and if the physician to aid in the determination of whether the unable to pay. (emphasis supplied)
court determines that the alleged father is not the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No
father of the child, or if the court finds that an such test shall be ordered, however, upon a In R.E. v. C.E.W.,[43] a decision of the
acknowledgment is invalid because it was executed written finding by the court that it is not in the Mississippi Supreme Court, DNA tests were used to
on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of best interests of the child on the basis of res prove that H.W., previously thought to be an
fact, the court shall vacate the acknowledgment of judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of offspring of the marriage between A.C.W. and
paternity and shall immediately provide a copy of the legitimacy of a child born to a married woman. C.E.W., was actually the child of R.E. with whom
order to the registrar of the district in which the The record or report of the results of any such genetic C.E.W. had, at the time of conception, maintained an
childs birth certificate is filed and also to the putative marker or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section adulterous relationship.
father registry operated by the department of social or pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the
services pursuant to section three hundred seventy- social services law shall be received in evidence by In Erie County Department of Social Services
two-c of the social services law. In addition, if the the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of rule forty-five on behalf of Tiffany M.H. v. Greg G.,[44] the
mother of the child who is the subject of the hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules 4th Department of the New York Supreme Courts
Appellate Division allowed G.G., who had been paternity eliminated the risk that the mother would be for paternity determinations by a nationally
adjudicated as T.M.H.s father by default, to have the unable meet her burden of proof. recognized scientific organization, including, but not
said judgment vacated, even after six years, once he limited to, the American association of blood banks.
had shown through a genetic marker test that he was It is worth noting that amendments to
not the childs father. In this case, G.G. only requested Michigans Paternity law have included the use of xxx xxx xxx
the tests after the Department of Social Services, six DNA testing:[46]
years after G.G. had been adjudicated as T.M.H.s
(5) If the probability of paternity determined by
father, sought an increase in his support obligation to
722.716 Pretrial proceedings; blood or tissue typing the qualified person described in subsection (2)
her. determinations as to mother, child, and alleged father; conducting the blood or tissue typing
In Greco v. Coleman,[45] the Michigan Supreme court order; refusal to submit to typing or or DNA identification profiling is 99% or higher,
Court while ruling on the constitutionality of a identification profiling; qualifications of person and theDNA identification profile and summary
provision of law allowing non-modifiable support conducting typing or identification profiling; report are admissible as provided in subsection
agreements pointed out that it was because of the compensation of expert; result of typing or (4), paternity is presumed. If the results of the
difficulty of determining paternity before the advent identification profiling; filing summary report; analysis of genetic testing material from 2 or more
of DNA testing that such support agreements were objection; admissibility; presumption; burden of persons indicate a probability of paternity greater
necessary: proof; summary disposition. than 99%, the contracting laboratory shall
conduct additional genetic paternity testing until
As a result of DNA testing, the accuracy with which Sec. 6. all but 1 of the putative fathers is eliminated,
paternity can be proven has increased significantly unless the dispute involves 2 or more putative
since the parties in this lawsuit entered into their (1) In a proceeding under this act before trial, the fathers who have identical DNA.
support agreement(current testing methods can court, upon application made by or on behalf of
determine the probability of paternity to 99.999999% either party, or on its own motion, shall order that (6) Upon the establishment of the presumption of
accuracy). However, at the time the parties before us the mother, child, and alleged father submit to paternity as provided in subsection (5), either party
entered into the disputed agreement, proving blood or tissue typing determinations, which may may move for summary disposition under the court
paternity was a very significant obstacle to an include, but are not limited to, determinations of rules. this section does not abrogate the right of either
illegitimate child's access to child support. The first red cell antigens, red cell isoenzymes, human party to child support from the date of birth of the
reported results of modern DNA paternity testing did leukocyte antigens, serum proteins, child if applicable under section 7. (emphasis
not occur until 1985. ("In fact, since its first reported or DNAidentification profiling, to determine supplied)
results in 1985, DNA matching has progressed to whether the alleged father is likely to be, or is not,
'general acceptance in less than a decade'"). Of the father of the child. If the court orders a blood In Rafferty v. Perkins,[47] the Supreme Court of
course, while prior blood-testing methods could or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling to Mississippi ruled that DNA test results showing
exclude some males from being the possible father of be conducted and a party refuses to submit to the paternity were sufficient to overthrow the
a child, those methods could not affirmatively typing or DNA identification profiling, in addition presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the
pinpoint a particular male as being the father. Thus, to any other remedies available, the court may do course of a marriage:
when the settlement agreement between the present either of the following:
parties was entered in 1980, establishing paternity The presumption of legitimacy having been rebutted
was a far more difficult ordeal than at present. (a) Enter a default judgment at the request of the by the results of the blood test eliminating Perkins as
Contested paternity actions at that time were often no appropriate party. Justin's father, even considering the evidence in the
more than credibility contests. Consequently, in light most favorable to Perkins, we find that no
every contested paternity action, obtaining child reasonable jury could find that Easter is not Justin's
(b) If a trial is held, allow the disclosure of the fact
support depended not merely on whether the putative father based upon the 99.94% probability of paternity
of the refusal unless good cause is shown for not
father was, in fact, the child's biological father, but concluded by the DNA testing.
disclosing the fact of refusal.
rather on whether the mother could prove to a court
of law that she was only sexually involved with one
(2) A blood or tissue typing or DNA identification In S.J.F. and J.C.F. v. R.C.W.,[48] the North
man--the putative father. Allowing parties the option
profiling shall be conducted by a person accredited Dakota Supreme Court upheld an order for genetic
of entering into private agreements in lieu of proving
testing given by the Court of Appeals, even after trial of discretion amounting to lack or excess of In the instant case, the petitioner has in no way
on the merits had concluded without such order being jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, shown any arbitrariness, passion, prejudice or
given. Significantly, when J.C.F., the mother, first speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course personal hostility that would amount to grave abuse
filed the case for paternity and support with the of law.[52] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. the of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The
District Court, neither party requested genetic testing. Court of Appeals[53] where we dismissed a special respondent court acted entirely within its jurisdiction
It was only upon appeal from dismissal of the case civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, we discussed in promulgating its decision and resolution, and any
that the appellate court remanded the case and at length the nature of such a petition and just what error made would have only been an error in
ordered the testing, which the North Dakota Supreme was meant by grave abuse of discretion: judgment. As we have discussed, however, the
Court upheld. decision of the respondent court, being firmly
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and anchored in law and jurisprudence, was correct.
The case of Kohl v. Amundson,[49] decided by
the Supreme Court of South Dakota, demonstrated whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
that even default judgments of paternity could be lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the
vacated after the adjudicated father had, through power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by Epilogue
DNA testing, established non-paternity. In this case, reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility,
Kohl, having excluded himself as the father of and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to
Amundsons child through DNA testing, was able to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal For too long, illegitimate children have been
have the default judgment against him vacated. He to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their
then obtained a ruling ordering Amundson to contemplation of law. existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing
reimburse him for the amounts withheld from his technology finally provides a much needed equalizer
wages for child support. The Court said (w)hile The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have
Amundson may have a remedy against the father of designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have
the child, she submit(ted) no authority that require(d) and not errors of judgment. The raison detre for the repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case
Kohl to support her child. Contrary to Amundson's rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally
position, the fact that a default judgment was entered, committed while so engaged does not deprive it of evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of
but subsequently vacated, (did) not foreclose Kohl the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is evidence gathering. We therefore take this
from obtaining a money judgment for the amount committed. If it did, every error committed by a court opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA
withheld from his wages. would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every testing is a valid means of determining paternity.
erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In
In M.A.S. v. Mississippi Dept. of Human such a scenario, the administration of justice would WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Services,[50] another case decided by the Supreme not survive. Hence, where the issue or question petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals
Court of Mississippi, it was held that even if paternity involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision dated January 28, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No.
was established through an earlier agreed order of decisionnot the jurisdiction of the court to render said 80961 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
filiation, child support and visitation orders could still decisionthe same is beyond the province of a special Costs against petitioner.
be vacated once DNA testing established someone civil action for certiorari.
other than the named individual to be the biological SO ORDERED.
father. The Mississippi High Court reiterated this The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a
doctrine in Williams v. Williams.[51] decision of the CA is a petition for review on
The foregoing considered, we find no grave certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
abuse of discretion on the part of the public Court. On the other hand, if the error subject of the
respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained
which both denied the petitioners motion to dismiss of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or
and ordered him to submit himself for DNA testing. agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy
the remedy of certiorari is only available when any available to the aggrieved party is a petition for
tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. (emphasis
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse supplied)
Republic of the Philippines presided over by respondent Judge Romeo F. a supposed error in admitting
SUPREME COURT Zamora. evidence adduced during trial. The
Manila ruling on admissibility is
Private respondent, after presenting his evidence, interlocutory; neither does it
SECOND DIVISION orally formally offered in evidence Exhibits "A" to impinge on jurisdiction. If it is
"M". erroneous, the ruling should be
questioned in the appeal from the
Among the exhibits offered by private respondent judgment on the merits and not
were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone through the special civil action
G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994 of certiorari. The error, assuming
conversations between petitioner and unidentified
gratuitously that it exists, cannot be
persons.
TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner, anymore than an error of law,
vs. properly correctible by appeal and
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. Petitioner submitted her Objection/Comment to not by certiorari.Otherwise, we
ZAMORA, Presiding Judge, Br. 94, Regional private respondent's oral offer of evidence on 9 June will have the sorry spectacle of a
Trial Court of Quezon City and RAFAEL S. 1992; on the same day, the trial court admitted all of case being subject of a
ORTANEZ, respondents. private respondent's offered evidence. counterproductive "ping-pong" to
and from the appellate court as
Oscar A. Inocentes & Associates Law Office for A motion for reconsideration from petitioner was often as a trial court is perceived to
petitioner. denied on 23 June 1992. have made an error in any of its
rulings with respect to evidentiary
Efren A. Santos for private respondent. A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner matters in the course of trial. This
in the Court of Appeals assailing the admission in we cannot sanction.
evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes.
WHEREFORE, the petition
On 10 June 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered for certiorari being devoid of
PADILLA, J.:
judgment which is the subject of the present petition, merit, is hereby DISMISSED. 1
which in part reads:
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
From this adverse judgment, petitioner filed the
Rules of Court which seeks to reverse the
It is much too obvious that the present petition for review, stating:
decision * of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.
petition will have to fail, for two
R. SP No. 28545 entitled "Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez
versus Hon. Romeo F. Zamora, Presiding Judge, Br. basic reasons: Grounds for Allowance of the
94, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and Rafael Petition
S. Ortanez". (1) Tape recordings are not
inadmissible per se. They and any 10. The decision of respondent
The relevant facts of the case are as follows: other variant thereof can be [Court of Appeals] has no basis in
admitted in evidence for certain law nor previous decision of the
purposes, depending on how they Supreme Court.
On 2 May 1990, private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez are presented and offered and on
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a how the trial judge utilizes them in
complaint for annulment of marriage with damages 10.1 In affirming
the interest of truth and fairness and the questioned
against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on the even handed administration of
grounds of lack of marriage license and/or order of
justice. respondent judge,
psychological incapacity of the petitioner. The
complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-5360 the Court of
(2) A petition for certiorari is Appeals has
and raffled to Branch 94, RTC of Quezon City
notoriously inappropriate to rectify
decided a However, where the assailed interlocutory order is or any information therein
question of patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would contained, obtained or
substance not not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court secured by any person in
theretofore may allow certiorari as a mode of redress. 3 violation of the preceding
determined by sections of this Act shall
the Supreme In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed not be admissible in
Court as the order admitting all of the evidence offered by private evidence in any judicial,
question of respondent, including tape recordings of telephone quasi-judicial, legislative
admissibility in conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. or administrative hearing
evidence of tape These tape recordings were made and obtained when or investigation.
recordings has private respondent allowed his friends from the
not, thus far, been military to wire tap his home telephone. 4 Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals
addressed and failed to consider the afore-quoted provisions of the
decided squarely Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in
by the Supreme Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to
Court. the telephone conversations allowed the recording of
of the Privacy of Communication, and for other
purposes" expressly makes such tape recordings the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
11. In affirming the questioned inadmissible in evidence. The relevant provisions of mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
order of respondent judge, the Rep. Act No. 4200 are as follows:
Court of Appeals has likewise Additionally, it should be mentioned that the above-
rendered a decision in a way not in mentioned Republic Act in Section 2 thereof imposes
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful
accord with law and with a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6)
for any person, not being
applicable decisions of the months and up to six (6) years for violation of said
authorized by all the
Supreme Court. Act. 5
parties to any private
communication or spoken
11.1 Although word, to tap any wire or We need not address the other arguments raised by
the questioned cable, or by using any the parties, involving the applicability of American
order is other device or jurisprudence, having arrived at the conclusion that
interlocutory in arrangement, to secretly the subject cassette tapes are inadmissible in evidence
nature, the same overhear, intercept, or under Philippine law.
can still be [the] record such
subject of a communication or spoken WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
petition word by using a device in CA-G. R. SP No. 28545 is hereby SET ASIDE.
for certiorari. 2 commonly known as a The subject cassette tapes are declared inadmissible
dictaphone or dictagraph in evidence.
The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the or detectaphone or walkie-
remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of talkie or tape-recorder, or
SO ORDERED.
Court was properly availed of by the petitioner in the however otherwise
Court of Appeals. described. . . .
Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes xxx xxx xxx Senator Taada.
In case of
must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.
entrapment, it
Thus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on Senator Taada.
would be the
whether or not an extension telephone is included in Another possible
the phrase "device or arrangement", the penal statute objection to that government.
Senator Diokno. evidence is not that an extension telephone is not among such
In the same way, very much. devices or arrangements.
under this
provision, neither Senator Taada. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
party could Your Honor, this decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court
record and, bill is not dated August 16, 1984 is ANNULLED and SET
therefore, the intended to ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the
court would be prevent the crime of violation of Rep. Act No. 4200, otherwise
limited to saying: presentation of known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
"Okay, who is false testimony.
more credible, If we could SO ORDERED.
the police devise a way by
officers or the which we could
defendant?" In prevent the
these cases, as presentation of
experienced false testimony, it
lawyers, we would be
know that the wonderful. But
Court go with the what this bill
peace offices. intends to
prohibit is the use
(Congressional of tape record
Record, Vol. 111, and other
No. 33, p. 628, electronic devices
March 12, 1964). to intercept
private
xxx xxx xxx conversations
which later on
will be used in
Senator Diokno.
The point I have court.
in mind is that
under these (Congressional
conditions, with Record, Vol. III,
an agent outside No. 33, March
listening in, he 12, 1964, p. 629).
could falsify the
testimony and It can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to
there is no way of discourage, through punishment, persons such as
checking it. But government authorities or representatives of
if you allow him organized groups from installing devices in order to
to record or make gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate,
a recording in blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over
any form of what the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of
is happening, listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be
then the chances with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No.
of falsifying the 4200 or others of similar nature. We are of the view
Republic of the Philippines Defendant Ester ka sa akin
SUPREME COURT S. Garcia (ESG) makakahingi.
Manila Ano ba ang
nangyari sa 'yo, CHUCHI
FIRST DIVISION nakalimot ka na Hindi M'am. Kasi
kung paano ka ang ano ko talaga
napunta rito, noon i-
porke member ka cocontinue ko up
na, magsumbong to 10:00 p.m.
G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995 ka kung ano ang
gagawin ko sa
ESG Bastos
SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner, 'yo.
vs. ka, nakalimutan
mo na kung
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and CHUCHI paano ka
ESTER S. GARCIA, respondents. Kasi, naka duty pumasok dito sa
ako noon. hotel.
Magsumbong ka
ESG Tapos sa Union kung
KAPUNAN, J.: iniwan no. (Sic) gusto mo.
Nakalimutan mo
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro CHUCHI na kung paano ka
D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon Hindi m'am, pero nakapasok dito
City alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. ilan beses na nila "Do you think
Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's office, akong binalikan, that on your own
allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a sabing ganoon makakapasok ka
"hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensive kung hindi ako.
to petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary to Panunumbyoyan
ESG Ito and
morals, good customs and public policy." 1 (sic) masasabi ko
na kita
sa 'yo, ayaw kung (Sinusumbatan na
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a (sic) mag explain kita).
verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral ka, kasi hanggang
damages, attorney's fees and other expenses of 10:00 p.m., CHUCHI
litigation in the amount of P610,000.00, in addition to kinabukasan Itutuloy ko na
costs, interests and other reliefs awardable at the trial hindi ka na M'am sana ang
court's discretion. The transcript on which the civil pumasok. duty ko.
case was based was culled from a tape recording of Ngayon ako ang
the confrontation made by petitioner. 2 The transcript babalik sa 'yo, ESG Kaso
reads as follows: nag-aaply ka sa ilang beses na
States, nag-aaply akong
Plaintiff Soccoro ka sa review mo, binabalikan doon
D. Ramirez kung ng mga no (sic)
(Chuchi) kakailanganin ko.
Good Afternoon ang certification
M'am. mo, kalimutan ESG
mo na kasi hindi Nakalimutan mo
na ba kung paano explain sa 'yo, utang na loob,
ka pumasok sa makaalala ka kasi kung baga sa
hotel, kung on kung paano ka no, nilapastangan
your own merit puma-rito. mo ako.
alam ko naman "Putang-ina"
kung gaano ka sasabi-sabihin mo CHUCHI
"ka bobo" mo. kamag-anak ng Paano kita
Marami ang nag- nanay at tatay mo nilapastanganan?
aaply alam kong ang mga
hindi ka papasa. magulang ko.
ESG Mabuti
pa lumabas ka na.
CHUCHI ESG Wala na Hindi na ako
Kumuha kami ng akong pakialam, makikipagusap sa
exam noon. dahil nandito ka 'yo. Lumabas ka
sa loob, nasa na. Magsumbong
ESG Oo, pero labas ka puwede ka. 3
hindi ka papasa. ka ng hindi
pumasok, okey
As a result of petitioner's recording of the event and
CHUCHI Eh, yan nasaloob ka alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
bakit ako ang umalis ka doon. confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a
nakuha ni Dr. criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of
Tamayo CHUCHI Kasi Pasay City for violation of Republic Act 4200,
M'am, binbalikan entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping
ESG Kukunin ako ng mga taga and other related violations of private
Union. communication, and other purposes." An information
ka kasi ako.
charging petitioner of violation of the said Act, dated
ESG October 6, 1988 is quoted herewith:
CHUCHI Eh,
di sana Nandiyan na rin
ako, pero huwag INFORMATION
mong kalimutan
ESG Huwag na hindi ka
mong ipagmalaki The Undersigned Assistant City
makakapasok
na may utak ka Fiscal Accusses Socorro D.
kung hindi ako.
kasi wala kang Ramirez of Violation of Republic
Kung hindi mo Act No. 4200, committed as
utak. Akala mo kinikilala yan
ba makukuha ka follows:
okey lang sa
dito kung hindi akin, dahil tapos
ako. ka na. That on or about
the 22nd day of
CHUCHI February, 1988,
CHUCHI Ina- in Pasay City
Mag-eexplain ano ko m'am na
ako. Metro Manila,
utang na loob.
Philippines, and
ESG Huwag within the
ESG Huwag jurisdiction of
na, hindi ako na lang, hindi mo this honorable
mag-papa-
court, the above- under Section
E 1 of R.A. 4200. In
named accused, thus quashing
T the information
Socorro D. based on A the ground that the facts
Ramirez not alleged do not constitute an
being authorized offense, the
A respondent judge acted
by Ester S. in grave abuse
s of discretion
Garcia to record s by certiorari. 5
correctible
the latter's t
conversation with Consequently, on February. 21, 1990, petitioner filed
said accused, did a Motion for Reconsideration which respondent
then and there Court of Appeals denied inCits Resolution 6 dated June
willfully, 19, 1990. Hence, the instanti petition.
unlawfully and t
feloniously, with y as her "main and
Petitioner vigorously argues,
the use of a tape principal issue" 7 that the applicable provision of
recorder secretly F
Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a
record the said i
private conversation by one of the parties to the
conversation and s
conversation. She contends that the provision merely
thereafter c
refers to the unauthorized taping of a private
communicate in conversation by a party othera than those involved in
writing the l
the communication. 8 In relation to this, petitioner
contents of the
avers that the substance or content of the
said recording to Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a conversation must be alleged in the Information,
other person. Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that otherwise the facts charged would not constitute a
the facts charged do not constitute an offense, violation of R.A. 4200. 9 Finally, petitioner agues that
Contrary to law. particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. In an order May R.A. 4200 penalizes the taping of a "private
3, 1989, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash, communication," not a "private conversation" and
Pasay City, agreeing with petitioner that 1) the facts charged do that consequently, her act of secretly taping her
Metro Manila, not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200; and that 2) conversation with private respondent was not illegal
September 16, the violation punished by R.A. 4200 refers to a the under the said act. 10
1988. taping of a communication by a person other than a
participant to the communication. 4
We disagree.
M
From the trial court's Order,Athe private respondent
First, legislative intent is determined principally from
filed a Petition for Review R on Certiorari with this the language of a statute. Where the language of a
Court, which forthwith referred
I the case to the Court statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied
of Appeals in a Resolution A (by the First Division) of
according to its express terms, and interpretation
June 19, 1989. N would be resorted to only where a literal
O interpretation would be either impossible 11 or absurb
On February 9, 1990, respondent Court of Appeals or would lead to an injustice. 12
promulgated its assailed Decision
M declaring the trial
court's order of May 3, 1989 . null and void, and
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, " An Act to Prohibit
holding that:
and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related
C
Violations of Private Communication and Other
U
[T]he allegations sufficiently Purposes," provides:
constituteNan offense punishable
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull for any Senator Padilla: So that when it is of one without his knowing it and
person, not being authorized by all intercepted or recorded, the then using it against him. It is not
the parties to any private element of secrecy would not fair, it is not sportsmanlike. If the
communication or spoken word, to appear to be material. Now, purpose; Your honor, is to record
tap any wire or cable, or by using suppose, Your Honor, the recording the intention of the parties. I
any other device or arrangement, to is not made by all the parties but by believe that all the parties should
secretly overhear, intercept, or some parties and involved not know that the observations are
record such communication or criminal cases that would be being recorded.
spoken word by using a device mentioned under section 3 but
commonly known as a dictaphone would cover, for example civil Senator Padilla: This might reduce
or dictagraph or detectaphone or cases or special proceedings the utility of recorders.
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or whereby a recording is made not
however otherwise described. necessarily by all the parties but
Senator Taada: Well no. For
perhaps by some in an effort to example, I was to say that in
The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally show the intent of the parties meetings of the board of directors
makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all because the actuation of the parties
where a tape recording is taken,
the parties to any private communication to secretly prior, simultaneous even
there is no objection to this if all
record such communication by means of a tape subsequent to the contract or the act
the parties know. It is but fair that
recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether may be indicative of their intention.
the people whose remarks and
the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought Suppose there is such a recording, observations are being made should
to be a party other than or different from those would you say, Your Honor, that know that the observations are
involved in the private communication. The statute's the intention is to cover it within
being recorded.
intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make the purview of this bill or outside?
such recording is underscored by the use of the
Senator Padilla: Now, I can
qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Senator Taada: That is covered by understand.
Appeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy the purview of this bill, Your
to a communication who records his private Honor.
conversation with another without the knowledge of Senator Taada: That is why when
the latter (will) qualify as a violator" 13 under this we take statements of persons, we
Senator Padilla: Even if the record say: "Please be informed that
provision of R.A. 4200. should be used not in the whatever you say here may be used
prosecution of offense but as
against you." That is fairness and
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, evidence to be used in Civil Cases
that is what we demand. Now, in
moreover, supports the respondent court's conclusion or special proceedings?
spite of that warning, he makes
that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed
damaging statements against his
contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape Senator Taada: That is right. This own interest, well, he cannot
recording of private conversations or is a complete ban on tape recorded complain any more. But if you are
communications taken either by the parties conversations taken without the going to take a recording of the
themselves or by third persons. Thus: authorization of all the parties. observations and remarks of a
person without him knowing that it
xxx xxx xxx Senator Padilla: Now, would that is being taped or recorded, without
be reasonable, your Honor? him knowing that what is being
Senator Taada: That qualified recorded may be used against him,
only "overhear". Senator Taada: I believe it is I think it is unfair.
reasonable because it is not
sporting to record the observation xxx xxx xxx
(Congression Record, Vol. III, No. R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his anti-social desires of views not
31, p. 584, March 12, 1964) COMMENT before the respondent court: "Nowhere intended to be taken seriously. The
(in the said law) is it required that before one can be right to the privacy of
Senator Diokno: Do you regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, communication, among others, has
understand, Mr. Senator, that under as well as its communication to a third person should expressly been assured by our
Section 1 of the bill as now be professed." 14 Constitution. Needless to state here,
worded, if a party secretly records the framers of our Constitution
a public speech, he would be Finally, petitioner's contention that the phrase must have recognized the nature
penalized under Section 1? Because "private communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 4200 of conversations between
the speech is public, but the does not include "private conversations" narrows the individuals and the significance of
recording is done secretly. ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a man's spiritual nature, of his
point of absurdity. The word communicate comes feelings and of his intellect. They
from the latin word communicare, meaning "to share must have known that part of the
Senator Taada: Well, that
particular aspect is not or to impart." In its ordinary signification, pleasures and satisfactions of life
contemplated by the bill. It is the communication connotes the act of sharing or are to be found in the unaudited,
imparting signification, communication connotes the and free exchange
communication between one person
act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, 15 or of communication between
and another person not between
signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts individuals free from every
a speaker and a public.
are shared between individuals through a common unjustifiable intrusion by whatever
system of symbols (as language signs or means. 17
xxx xxx xxx
gestures)" 16 These definitions are broad enough to
include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 18 a case
(Congressional Record, Vol. III, communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping,
No. 33, p. 626, March 12, 1964) likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange, we held that the use of a telephone extension for the
on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and private purpose of overhearing a private conversation
xxx xxx xxx respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office. Any without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200
doubts about the legislative body's meaning of the because a telephone extension devise was neither
The unambiguity of the express words of the phrase "private communication" are, furthermore, put among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)"
provision, taken together with the above-quoted to rest by the fact that the terms "conversation" and enumerated therein, 19 following the principle that
deliberations from the Congressional Record, "communication" were interchangeably used by "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of
therefore plainly supports the view held by the Senator Taada in his Explanatory Note to the bill the accused." 20 The instant case turns on a different
respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize quoted below: note, because the applicable facts and circumstances
even those privy to the private communications. pointing to a violation of R.A. 4200 suffer from no
Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not It has been said that innocent ambiguity, and the statute itself explicitly mentions
distinguish. people have nothing to fear from the unauthorized "recording" of private
their conversations being communications with the use of tape-recorders as
Second, the nature of the conversations is immaterial overheard. But this statement among the acts punishable.
to a violation of the statute. The substance of the ignores the usual nature
same need not be specifically alleged in the of conversations as well the WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to the
information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of undeniable fact that most, if not all, case at bench is clear and unambiguous and leaves us
secretly overhearing, intercepting or civilized people have some aspects with no discretion, the instant petition is hereby
recording private communications by means of the of their lives they do not wish to DENIED. The decision appealed from is
devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that expose. Free conversations are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
an individual made a secret recording of a private often characterized by
communication by means of a tape recorder would exaggerations, obscenity, agreeable SO ORDERED.
suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of falsehoods, and the expression of
Republic of the Philippines Commission presided by the respondents herein, and WHEREAS, the persons so accused should
SUPREME COURT the other petitioner Loreto Barrioquinto, who had not be regarded as criminals but rather as
Manila then been already apprehended, did the same. patriots and heroes who have rendered
invaluable service to the nation; and
EN BANC After a preliminary hearing had started, the Amnesty
Commission, prescribed by the respondents, issued WHEREAS, it is desirable that without the
G.R. No. L-1278 January 21, 1949 on January 9, 1947, an order returning the cases of least possible delay, these persons be freed
the petitioners to the Court of First Instance of form the indignity and the jeopardy to which
Zamboanga, without deciding whether or not they are they are now being subjected;
LORETO BARRIOQUINTO and NORBERTO
entitled to the benefits of he said Amnesty
JIMENEZ, petitioners,
Proclamation, on the ground that inasmuch as neither NOW, THEREFORE, I Manuel Roxas,
vs.
Barrioquinto nor Jimenez have admitted having President of the Philippines in accordance
ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO
committed the offense, because Barrioquinto alleged with the provisions of Article VII, section
BELMONTE and FELICISIMO OCAMPO, as
that it was Hipolito Tolentino who shot and killed the 10, paragraph 6 of the Constitution, do
Commissioners of the Fourteenth Guerrilla
victim, they cannot invoke the benefits of amnesty. hereby declare and proclaim an amnesty inn
Amnesty Commission, respondents.
favor of al persons who committed any act
The Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946, penalized under the Revised Penal Code in
Roseller T. Lim for petitioners.
Antonio Belmonte for respondents. issued by the President with the concurrence of furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or
Congress of the Philippines, reads in part as follows: against persons aiding in the war effort of
the enemy, and committed during the period
FERIA, J.: from December 8, 1941 to the date when
WHEREAS, since the inception of the war
until the liberation of the different areas each particular area of the Philippines was
This is a special action of mandamus instituted by the comprising the territory of the Philippines, actually liberated from the enemy control
petitioners against the respondents who composed the volunteer armed forces of Filipinos and for and occupation. This amnesty shall not
14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, to compel the of other nationalities operated as guerrillas apply to crimes against chastity or to acts
latter to act and decide whether or not the petitioners and other patriotic individuals and groups committed from purely personal motives.
are entitled to the benefits of amnesty. pursued activities in opposition to the forces
and agents of the Japanese Empire in the It is further proclaimed and declared that in
Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto invasion and occupation of the Philippines; order to determine who among those against
Barrioquinto were charged with the crime of murder. whom charges have been filed before the
As the latter had not yet been arrested the case WHEREAS, members of such forces, in courts of the Philippines or against whom
proceeded against the former, and after trial Court of their determined efforts to resist the enemy, charges may be filed in the future, come
First Instance of Zamboanga sentenced Jimenez to and to bring about his ultimate defeat, within the terms of this amnesty, Guerrilla
life imprisonment. Before the period for perfecting an committed acts penalized under the Revised Amnesty Commissions, simultaneously to
appeal had expired, the defendant Jimenez became Penal Code; be established , shall examine the facts and
aware of the Proclamation No. 8, dated September 7, circumstance surrounding each case and, if
1946, which grants amnesty in favor of all persons necessary, conduct summary hearings of
WHEREAS, charges have been presented in
who may be charged with an act penalized under the witnesses both for the complainant and the
Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance the courts against many members of these
accused. These Commissions shall decided
to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war resistance forces, for such acts;
each case and, upon finding that it falls
efforts of the enemy, and committed during the within the terms of this proclamation, the
period from December 8, 1941, to the date when WHEREAS, the fact that such acts were Commissions shall so declare and this
particular area of the Philippines where the offense committed in furtherance of the resistance to amnesty shall immediately be effective as to
was actually committed was liberated from enemy the enemy is not a valid defense under the the accused, who shall forthwith be released
control and occupation, and said Jimenez decided to laws of the Philippines; or discharged.
submit his case to the Guerrilla Amnesty
The theory of the respondents, supported by the either of the complainant or the accused, shows that invaluable services to the nation inn committing such
dissenting opinion, is predicated on a wrong the offense committed comes within the terms of said an act.
conception of the nature or character of an amnesty. Amnesty Proclamation. Hence, it is not correct to say
Amnesty must be distinguished from pardon. that "invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the While it is true that the evidence must show that the
nature of a plea of confession and avoidance." offense charged was against chastity and was
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such Although the accused does not confess the imputation committed in furtherance of the resistance against the
it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved against him, he may be declared by the courts or the enemy, for otherwise, it is to be naturally presumed
by the person pardoned, because the courts take no Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits. For, that is has been committed for purely personal
notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the whether or not he admits or confesses having motive, it is nonetheless true that though the motive
Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, committed the offense with which he is charged, the as a mental impulse is state of mind or subjective, it
and it is a public act of which the courts should take Commissions should, if necessary or requested by the need not be testified to be the defendant himself at
judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after interested party, conduct summary hearing of the his arraignment or hearing of the case. Generally the
conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of witnesses both for the complainants and the accused, motive for the commission of an offense is
persons or communities who may be guilty of on whether he has committed the offense in established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts
political offenses, generally before or after the furtherance of the resistance to the enemy, or against or statements of the accused before or immediately
institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, and after the commission of the offense, deeds or words
after conviction. Pardon looks forward and relieves decide whether he is entitled to the benefits of hat may express it or from which his motive or
the offender from the consequences of an offense of amnesty and to be "regarded as a patriot or hero who reason for committing it may be inferred. The
which he has been convicted, that is, it abolished or have rendered invaluable services to the nation,," or statement of testimony of a defendant at the time of
forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does not, in accordance with the terms of the Amnesty arraignment or the hearing of the case about said
""nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public Proclamation. since the Amnesty Proclamation is a motive, can not generally be considered and relied
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be public act, the courts as well as the Amnesty on, specially if there is evidence to the contrary, as
expressly restored by the terms of the pardon," and it Commissions created thereby should take notice of the true expression of the reason o motive he had at
"in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the terms of said Proclamation and apply the benefits the time of committing the offense. Because such
the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the granted therein to cases coming within their province statements or testimony may be an afterthought or
sentence" article 36, Revised Penal Code). while or jurisdiction, whether pleaded or claimed by the colored by the interest he may have to suit his
amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into person charged with such offenses or not, if the defense or the purpose for which he intends to
oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and evidence presented show that the accused is entitled achieve with such declaration. Hence it does not
obliterates the offense with which he is charged that to said benefits. stand to reason and logic to say, as the dissenting
the person released by amnesty stands before the law opinion avers, that unless the defendant admits at the
precisely as though he had committed no offense. The right to the benefits of amnesty, once established investigation or hearing having committed the
(section 10[6], Article VII, Philippine Constitution; by the evidence presented either by the complainant offense with which he is charged, and states that he
State vs. Blalock, 62 N.C., 242, 247; In re Briggs, or prosecution, or by the defense, can not be waived, did it in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy,
135 N.C., 118; 47 S.E. 402., 403; Ex parte Law, 35 because it is of public interest that a person who is and not for purely personal motive, it is impossible
GA., 285, 296; State ex rel AnheuserBusch regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation which has the for the court of Commission to verify the motive for
Brewing Ass'n. vs. Eby, 170 Mo., 497; 71 S.W 52, force of a law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the commission of the offense, because only the
61; Burdick vs United States, N.Y., 35 S. Ct., 267; the eyes of the law as if he had never committed any accused could explain of the offense, because only
271; 236 U.S., 79; 59 Law. ed., 476.) punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a the accused could explain his belief and intention or
patriot or hero, can not be punishment as a criminal. the motive of committing the offense.
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so Just as the courts of justice can not convict a person
hold that, in order to entitle a person to the benefits of who, according to the evidence, has committed an act There is no necessity for an accused to admit his
the Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946, it is not punishable by law, although he confesses being responsibility for the commission of a criminal act
not necessary that he should, as a condition precedent guilty thereof, so also and a fortiori they can not before a court of Amnesty Commission may
or sine qua non, admit having committed the criminal convict a person considered by law not a criminal, investigate and extend or not to him the benefits of
act or offense with which he is charged and allege the but as a patriot and hero, for having rendered amnesty. The fact that he pleads not guilty or that he
amnesty as a defense; it is sufficient that the evidence has not committed the act with which he is charged,
does not necessarily prove that he is not guilty Proclamation although the defendant has plead not Separate Opinions
thereof. Notwithstanding his denial, the evidence for guilty, there is no reason why the Amnesty
the prosecution or complainant may show the Commissions can not do so. Where a defendant to PERFECTO, J., concurring:
contrary, as it is generally the case in criminal admit or confess having committed the offense or
proceedings, and what should in such a case be being responsible therefor before he can invoke the
An information for the crime of murder was filed
determined is whether or not the offense committed benefit of amnesty, as there is no law which makes
against petitioners with the Court of First Instance of
is of political character. The plea of not having such admission or confession not admissible as
Zamboanga. Because Barrioquinto was then at large,
committed the offense made by an accused simply evidence against him in the courts of justices in case the information was dismissed and a separate
means that he can not be convicted of the offense the Amnesty Commission finds that the offense does criminal case was instituted against him. Jimenez was
charged because he is not guilty thereof, and, even if not come within the terms of the Amnesty
tried with other accused and sentenced to life
the evidence would show that he is, because he has Proclamation, nobody or few would take the risk of
imprisonment. Within the time for appeal, Jimenez
committed it in furtherance of the resistance to the submitting their case to said Commission.
became aware of Proclamation No. 8, date September
enemy or against persons a ding in the war efforts of
7, 1946, granting amnesty to all persons who have
the enemy, and not for purely political motives. Besides, in the present case, the allegation of Loreto committed offenses in furtherance of the resistance
Barrioquinto that the offended party or victim was against the Japanese, and decided to submit his case
According to Administrative Order No. 11 of shot and killed by Agapito Hipolito , does not to the 14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission.
October 2, 1946, creating the Amnesty Commissions, necessarily bar the respondents from finding, after Barrioquinto, having been apprehended, did the
issued by the President of the Philippines, cases the summary hearing of the witnesses for the same.
pending in the Courts of First Instance of the complaints and the accused, directed in the said
province in which the accused claims the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation and Administrative Order No. After the preliminary hearing had started, the
Amnesty Proclamation, and cases already decided by 11, that the petitioners are responsible for the killing
Commission issued on January 9, 1947, an order for
said courts but not yet elevated on appeal to the of the victim, either as principals by cooperation,
the return of the cases of petitioners to the Court of
appellate courts, shall be passed upon and decided by inducement or conspiration, or as accessories before
First Instance of Zamboanga, without deciding
the respective Amnesty Commission, and cases as well as after the fact, but that they are entitled to
whether or not they are entitled to amnesty, because
pending appeal shall be passed upon by the Seventh the benefits of amnesty, because they were members Barrioquinto sated in his testimony that it was
Amnesty Commission. Under the theory of the of the same group of guerrilleros who killed the
Hipolito Tolentino who fired at and killed the
respondents and the writer oft he dissenting opinion, victim in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy
offended party. The Commission issued the order
the Commissions should refuse to comply with the or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the
upon the thesis that, for any person to invoke the
directive of said Administrative Order, because is enemy.
benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, it is required
almost all cases pending in the Court of First that he should first admit having committed the
Instance, and all those pending appeal form the Wherefore, the respondents are hereby ordered to offensive act for which he is prosecuted.
sentence of said courts, the defendants must not have immediately proceed to hear and decide the
pleaded guilty or admitted having committed the application for amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto
offense charged for otherwise, they would not or The next of the Amnesty Proclamation fails to
and Jimenez, unless amnesty of petitioners
could not have appealed from the judgment of the support the thesis. To entitle a person to have his case
Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless the courts have in heard and decided by a Guerrilla Amnesty
Courts of First Instance. To hold that a Amnesty the meantime already decided, expressly and finally,
Commission should not proceed to the investigation Commission only the following elements are
the question whether or not they are entitled to the
and act and decide whether the offense with which an essential: First, that he is charged or may be charged
benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 of
accused was charged comes within the Amnesty with ab offense penalized under the Revised Penal
September 7, 1946. So ordered.
Proclamation if he does not admit or confess having Code, except those against chastity or for purely
committed it would be to defeat the purpose for personal motives; second, that he committed the
Moran, C. J., Paras, Bengzon, and Briones, offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy;
which the Amnesty Proclamation was issued and the JJ., concur.
Amnesty Commission were established. If the courts and third, that it was committed during the period
have to proceed to the trail or hearing of a case and from December 8, 1941, to the date when the area
decide whether the offense committed by the where the offense was committed was actually
defendant comes within the terms of the Amnesty liberated from enemy control and occupation.
If these three elements are present in a case brought
before a Guerrillas Amnesty Commission, the latter
cannot refuse to hear and decide it under the
proclamation. There is nothing in the proclamation to
even hint that the applicant for amnesty must first
admit having executed the acts constituting the
offense with which he is charged or be charged.
SO ORDERED.
That the plaintiffs are the legal It is our considered opinion that new trial was
heirs and nearest of kin of warranted to prevent a possible miscarriage of
Republic of the Philippines Tabernilla agreed provided she paid the realty taxes In sustaining the trial court, the respondent court held
SUPREME COURT on the property, which she promised to do, and did. that, contrary to the allegations of the appellant, the
Manila She remained on the said land until her death, said exhibits were in fact formally submitted in
following which the petitioner, her son and half- evidence as disclosed by the transcript of
FIRST DIVISION brother of Juan Peralta, Jr., took possession thereof. stenographic notes, which it quoted at length. 2 The
The complaint was filed when demand was made challenged decision also upheld the use by the trial
upon Tabuena to surrender the property and he court of testimony given in an earlier case, to bolster
G.R. No. 85423 May 6, 1991
refused, claiming it as his own. its findings in the second case.
JOSE TABUENA, petitioner,
The trial court rejected his defense that he was the We have examined the record and find that the
vs.
absolute owner of the lot, which he inherited from his exhibits submitted were not the above-described
COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIANO
parents, who acquired it even before World War II documents but Exhibits "X" and "T" and their sub-
TABERNILLA, JR., respondents.
and had been living thereon since then and until they markings, which were the last will and testament of
died. Also disbelieved was his contention that the Alfredo Tabernilla and the order of probate. It is not
Ramon Dimen for petitioner. subject of the sale between Peralta and Tabernilla at all denied that the list of exhibits does not include
Dionisio A. Hernandez for private respondent. was a different piece of land planted to coconut trees Exhibits "A", "B" and "C". In fact, the trial court
and bounded on three sides by the Makato River. categorically declared that "Exhibits "A-1, "A-2",
"B", "C" and "C-l," were not among those documents
Tabuena appealed to the respondent court, or exhibits formally offered for admission by
complaining that, in arriving at its factual findings, plaintiff-administratrix." This is a clear contradiction
CRUZ, J.: the trial court motu proprio took cognizance of of the finding of the appellate court, which seems to
Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", which had been marked have confused Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" with
The petitioner faults the decision of the trial court, as by the plaintiff but never formally submitted in Exhibits "X" and "Y", the evidence mentioned in the
affirmed by the respondent court, for lack of basis. It evidence. The trial court also erred when, to resolve quoted transcript.
is argued that the lower courts should not have taken the ownership of the subject lot, it considered the
into account evidence not submitted by the private proceedings in another case involving the same Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35
respondent in accordance with the Rules of Court. parties but a different parcel of land. thereof as follows:
The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential The said exhibits are referred to in the pre-trial order Sec. 35. Offer of evidence.The court shall
land consisting of about 440 square meters and as follows: consider no evidence which has not been
situated in Poblacion, Makato, Aklan. In 1973, an formally offered. The purpose for which the
action for recovery of ownership thereof was filed in Plaintiff proceeded to mark the following evidence is offered must be specified.
the Regional Trial Court of Aklan by the estate of exhibits: Exh. "A", letter dated October 4,
Alfredo Tabernilla against Jose Tabuena, the herein 1921 addressed in Makato, Capiz, The mere fact that a particular document is marked as
petitioner. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor Philippines; Exh. "A-1", paragraph 2 of the an exhibit does not mean it has thereby already been
of the plaintiff and the defendant was required to letter indicating that the amount of offered as part of the evidence of a party. It is true
vacate the disputed lot. 1 P600.00the first P300.00 and then another that Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the
P300.00 as interest since October 4, 1921; pre-trial of the case below, but this was only for the
As the trial court found, the lot was sold by Juan Exh. "A-2", is paragraph 3 of the letter; Exh. purpose of identifying them at that time. They were
Peralta, Jr. sometime in 1926 to Alfredo Tabernilla "B", a Spanish document; Exh. "C", deed of not by such marking formally offered as exhibits. As
while the two were in the United States. Tabernilla conveyance filed by Tomasa Timtiman and we said in Interpacific Transit, Inc. vs. Aviles, 3 "At
returned to the Philippines in 1934, and Damasa Alfredo Tabernilla in 1923; and Exh. "C-1", the trial on the merits, the party may decide to
Timtiman, acting upon her son Juan's instruction, paragraph 4 of Exh. "C". formally offer (the exhibits) if it believes they will
conveyed the subject land to Tabernilla. At the same advance its cause, and then again it may decide not to
time, she requested that she be allowed to stay do so at all. In the latter event, such documents
thereon as she had been living there all her life.
cannot be considered evidence, nor can they be given The respondent court also held that the trial court The respondent court said that even assuming that the
any evidentiary value." committed no reversible error in taking judicial trial court improperly took judicial notice of the other
notice of Tabuena's testimony in a case it had case, striking off all reference thereto would not be
Chief Justice Moran explained the rationale of the previously heard which was closely connected with fatal to the plaintiff's cause because "the said
rule thus: the case before it. It conceded that as a general rule testimony was merely corroborative of other
"courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in evidences submitted by the plaintiff." What "other
the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the evidences"? The trouble with this justification is that
. . . The offer is necessary because it is the
duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts contents of the records of other cases, even when the exhibits it intends to corroborate, to wit, Exhibits
and his judgment only and strictly upon the such cases have been tried or are pending in the same "A", "B" and "C", have themselves not been formally
court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases submitted.
evidence offered by the patties at the trial. 4
may have been heard or are actually pending b before
the same judge. 7 Nevertheless, it applied the Considering the resultant paucity of the evidence for
We did say in People vs. Napat-a 5 that even if there exception that:
be no formal offer of an exhibit, it may still be the private respondent, we feel that the complaint
admitted against the adverse party if, first, it has been should have been dismissed by the trial court for
. . . in the absence of objection, and as a failure of the plaintiff to substantiate its allegations. It
duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
matter of convenience to all parties, a court has failed to prove that the subject lot was the same
second, it has itself been incorporated in the records
may properly treat all or any part of the parcel of land sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. to Alfredo
of the case. But we do not find that these
original record of a case filed in its archives Tabernilla and not another property, as the petitioner
requirements have been satisfied in the case before
us. The trial court said the said exhibits could be as read into the record of a case pending contends. Even assuming it was the same lot, there is
validly considered because, even if they had not been before it, when, with the knowledge of the no explanation for the sale thereof by Juan Peralta,
opposing party, reference is made to it for Jr., who was only the son of Damasa Timtiman.
formally offered, one of the plaintiffs witnesses,
that purpose, by name and number or in According to the trial court, "there is no question that
Cunegunda Hernandez, testified on them at the trial
some other manner by which it is before 1934 the land in question belonged to Damasa
and was even cross-examined by the defendant's
sufficiently designated; or when the original Timtiman." Juan Peralta, Jr. could not have validly
counsel. We do not agree. Although she did testify,
all she did was identify the documents. Nowhere in record of the former case or any part of it, is conveyed title to property that did not belong to him
actually withdrawn from the archives by the unless he had appropriate authorization from the
her testimony can we find a recital of the contents of
court's direction, at the request or with the owner. No such authorization has been presented.
the exhibits.
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part
of the record of the case then pending. 8 It is true that tax declarations are not conclusive
Thus, her interrogation on Exhibit "A" ran:
evidence of ownership, as we have held in many
It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable cases.1wphi1However, that rule is also not absolute
LEGASPI: That is this Exh. "A" about ? only when, "in the absence of objection," "with the and yields to the accepted and well-known exception.
knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the request In the case at bar, it is not even disputed that the
A The translation of the letter. or with the consent of the parties," the case is clearly petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest have
referred to or "the original or part of the records of possessed the disputed property since even before
Q What is the content of this Exh. "A", the the case are actually withdrawn from the archives" World War II. In light of this uncontroverted fact, the
letter of the sister of Juan Peralta to Alfredo and "admitted as part of the record of the case then tax declarations in their name become weighty and
Tabernilla? pending." These conditions have not been established compelling evidence of the petitioner's ownership. As
here. On the contrary, the petitioner was completely this Court has held:
Court: The best evidence is the document. unaware that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327
Proceed. 6 was being considered by the trial court in the case While it is true that by themselves tax
then pending before it. As the petitioner puts it, the receipts and declarations of ownership for
matter was never taken up at the trial and was taxation purposes are not incontrovertible
She also did not explain the contents of the other two
"unfairly sprung" upon him, leaving him no evidence of ownership they become strong
exhibits.
opportunity to counteract. evidence of ownership acquired by
prescription when accompanied by proof of owner. 15 These acts denote ownership and are not
actual possession of the property. 9 consistent with the private respondent's claim that the
petitioner was only an overseer with mere possessory
It is only where payment of taxes is rights tolerated by Tabernilla.
accompanied by actual possession of the
land covered by the tax declaration that such It is the policy of this Court to accord proper
circumstance may be material in supporting deference to the factual findings of the courts below
a claim of ownership. 10 and even to regard them as conclusive where there is
no showing that they have been reached arbitrarily.
The tax receipts accompanied by actual and The exception is where such findings do not conform
continuous possession of the subject parcels to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have
of land by the respondents and their parents no valid basis to sustain their correctness. As in this
before them for more than 30 years qualify case.
them to register title to the said subject
parcels of land. 11 The conclusions of the trial court were based mainly
on Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", which had not been
The Court can only wonder why, if Alfredo formally offered as evidence and therefore should
Tabernilla did purchase the property and have been totally disregarded, conformably to the
magnanimously allowed Damasa Timtiman to remain Rules of Court. The trial court also erred when it
there, he did not at least require her to pay the realty relied on the evidence submitted in Civil Case No.
taxes in his name, not hers. The explanation given by 1327 and took judicial notice thereof without the
the trial court is that he was not much concerned with consent or knowledge of the petitioner, in violation of
the property, being a bachelor and fond only of the existing doctrine. Thus vitiated, the factual findings
three dogs he had bought from America. That is here challenged are as an edifice built upon shifting
specious reasoning. At best, it is pure conjecture. If sands and should not have been sustained by the
he were really that unconcerned, it is curious that he respondent court.
should have acquired the property in the first place,
even as dacion en pago. He would have demanded Our own finding is that the private respondent, as
another form of payment if he did not have the plaintiff in the lower court, failed to prove his claim
intention at all of living on the land. On the other of ownership over the disputed property with
hand, if he were really interested in the property, we evidence properly cognizable under our adjudicative
do not see why he did not have it declared in his laws. By contrast, there is substantial evidence
name when the realty taxes thereon were paid by supporting the petitioner's contrary contentions that
Damasa Timtiman or why he did not object when the should have persuaded the trial judge to rule in s
payments were made in her own name. favor and dismiss the complaint.
In comparison, all the acts of Damasa Timtiman and WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Jose Tabuena indicate that they were the owners of appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
the disputed property. Damasa Timtiman and her with costs against the private respondent. It is so
forebears had been in possession thereof for more ordered.
than fifty years and, indeed, she herself stayed there
until she died. 12 She paid the realty taxes thereon in
her own name. 13 Jose Tabuena built a house of
strong materials on the lot. 14 He even mortgaged the
land to the Development Bank of the Philippines and
to two private persons who acknowledged him as the
Republic of the Philippines This was the argument advanced: "The instant matter by the same plaintiff. [So ordered]" 2 Hence,
SUPREME COURT complaint or case, besides being clearly unfounded this appeal.
Manila and malicious, is identical to or the same as that Civil
Case No. 1574 filed by the same plaintiff and against The order of dismissal, as noted at the outset, must be
EN BANC Melecio alias Mening Jalagat, now deceased and sustained. It is in accordance with law.
whose legal heirs and successors in interest are the
very defendants in the instant complaint or Civil Case
1. The sole error assigned is that a bar by prior
No. 2639. Said Civil Case No. 1574 was filed on judgement cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss
October 7, 1958 for 'Recovery of Possession and when such ground does not appear on the face of the
G.R. No. L-28100 November 29, 1971 Ownership of Real Estate' and entitled Gabriel
complaint. What immediately calls attention in the
Baguio, plantiff, versus Melecio alias Mening
rather sketchy and in conclusive discussion in the six-
GABRIEL BAGUIO, plaintiff-Appellant, Jalagat, defendant, involving practically the same
vs. page brief of applicant is that there was no denial as
property and practically the same parties as
to the truth of the statement made by Judge Gorospe
TEOFILA L. VDA. DE JALAGAT, for herself defendants are the widow and the children, that there was a previous dismissal the same
and in representation of her minor children, respectively, thus the legal or forced heirs of the plaintiff's complaint against the predecessor-in-
DOMINADOR, LEA and TEONIFE all surnamed deceased Melecio Jalagat. That the said Case No.
interest of defendants, who as expressly admitted by
JALAGAT; ANABELLA JALAGAT and 1574, which is identical to or is the same case as the
appellant was the deceased husband of one of them
EMMANUEL JALAGAT, defendants-appellees. instant one, has already been duly and finally
and father of the rest. There was no denial either of
terminated as could be clear from [an] order of this
the property involved being the same and of the
Bonifacio P. Legaspi for plaintiff-appellant. Honorable Court [dated December 6, 1965]." 1 There finality of the decsion in the previous case which
was an opposition on the part of plaintiff made on would show that appellant's claim was devoid of any
Cecilio P. Luminarias for defendants-appellees. March 26, 1966 on the ground that for prior judgment
support in law. It would be therefore futile for the
or res judicata to suffice as a basis for dismissal it
court to continue with the case as there had been such
must be apparent on the face of the complaint. It was
a prior judgment certainly binding on appellant. What
then alleged that there was nothing in the complaint then was there for the lower court to do? Was there
from which such a conclusion may be inferred. Then, any sense in its being engaged in what was
FERNANDO, J.: on September 26, 1966, came the order complained
essentially a fruitless, endeavor as the outcome was
of worded thus: "Acting on the motion to dismiss
predictible?
The specific legal question raised in this appeal from filed by counsel for the defendants under date of
an order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance of March 4, 1966, anchored on the ground that
Misamis Oriental, presided by the Hon. Benjamin K. plaintiff's cause of action is barred by a prior Certainly, the law would lend itself to a well-
Gorospe, one which has not as yet been the subject of judgement which this Court finds to be well-founded deserved reproach if the Rules of Court would
a definitive ruling is whether or not on a motion to as it has already dismissed plaintiff's complaint in sanction such a proceeding distinguished by nothing
dismiss on the ground of res judicata that the cause Civil Case No. 1574 against Melecio Jalagat alias but its futility. It ought to be clear even to appellant
of action is barred by a prior judgment, a lower court Mening Jalagat, defendants predecessor in interest that under the circumstances, the lower court
may take judicial notice of such previous case from whom they have derived their rights, in an order certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of a
decided by him resulting in the prior judgment relied dated December 6, 1965, pursuant to Section 3 of judgment in a case that was previously pending and
upon. Judge Gorospe answered in the affirmative. So Rule 17 of the new Rules of Court, which case thereafter decided by it. That was all that was done
do we. An affirmance is thus called for. involved the same parcel of land as the one in the by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal.
instant case, as prayed for, Civil Case No. 2639 Certainly such an order is not contrary to law. A
should be as it is hereby [dismissed]. The Court's citation from the comments of former Chief Justice
The case started with the complaint for the quieting
previous dismissal of Civil Case No. 1574 has the Moran is relevant. Thus: "Courts have also taken
of title to real property filed by plaintiff, now
effect of an adjudication upon the merits and judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether
appellant, Gabriel Baguio, on February, 14, 1966.
consequently is a bar to and may be pleaded in or not the case pending is a moot one, or whether or
There was on March 7, 1966 a motion to dismiss
abatement of any subsequent action against the same not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under
filed by defendants, now appellees, on the ground
parties over the same issues and the same subject- consideration." 3
that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.
2. There is another equally compelling consideration.
Appellant undoubtedly had recourse to a remedy
which under the law then in force could be availed of.
It would have served the cause of justice better, not to
mention the avoidance of needless expense on his
part and the vexation to which appellees were
subjected if he did reflect a little more on the matter.
Then the valuable time of this Tribunal would not
have been frittered away on a useless find hopeless
appeal. It has, ever been the guiding principle
from Alonso v. Villamor, 4 a 1910 decision, that a
litigant should not be allowed to worship at the altar
of technicality. That is not to dispense justice
according to law. Parties, and much more so their
counsel, should ever keep such an imperative of our
legal system in mind. 5
SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION The Facts 3) It is incumbent upon [p]etitioner to prove by
competent and sufficient evidence that the tax refund
or tax credit being sought is allowed under the
Quoting the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the National Internal Revenue Code and its
[G.R. No. 151857. April 28, 2005] CA narrated the antecedents as follows: implementing rules and regulations; and
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the 4) Claims for tax refund or tax credit are construed
manufacture of steel blanks for use by manufacturers strictly against the taxpayer as they partake the nature
CALAMBA STEEL CENTER, INC. (formerly JS of automotive, electrical, electronics in industrial and of tax exemption.
STEEL CORPORATION), petitioner, household appliances.
vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL To buttress its claim, [p]etitioner presented
REVENUE, respondent. Petitioner filed an Amended Corporate Annual documentary and testimonial evidence. Respondent,
Income Tax Return on June 4, 1996 declaring a net on the other hand, presented the [r]evenue [o]fficer
DECISION taxable income of P9,461,597.00, tax credits who conducted the examination of [p]etitioners claim
of P6,471,246.00 and tax due in the amount and found petitioner liable for deficiency value added
PANGANIBAN, J.: of P3,311,559.00. tax. Petitioner also presented rebuttal evidence.
A tax refund may be claimed even beyond the Petitioner also reported quarterly payments for the The sole issue submitted for [o]ur determination is
taxable year following that in which the tax credit second and third quarters of 1995 in the amounts whether or not [p]etitioner is entitled to the refund
arises. Hence, excess income taxes paid in 1995 that of P2,328,747.26 and P1,082,108.00, respectively. of P3,159,687.00 representing excess or overpaid
have not been applied to or used in 1996 may still be income tax for the taxable year 1995.[4]
the subject of a tax refund in 1997, provided that the It is the proposition of the [p]etitioner that for the
claim for such refund is filed with the internal year 1995, several of its clients withheld taxes from
revenue commissioner within two years after their income payments to [p]etitioner and remitted
payment of said taxes. As a caveat, the Court stresses Ruling of the Court of Appeals
the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in
that the recognition of the entitlement to a tax refund the sum of P3,159,687.00. Petitioner further alleged
does not necessarily mean the automatic payment of that due to its income/loss positions for the three
the sum claimed in the final adjustment return of the In denying petitioners refund, the CA reasoned
quarters of 1996, it was unable to use the excess tax out that no evidence other than that presented before
taxpayer. The amount of the claim must still be paid for and in its behalf by the withholding agents.
proven in the normal course. the CTA was adduced to prove that excess tax
payments had been made in 1995. From the inception
Thus, an administrative claim was filed by the of the case to the formal offer of its evidence,
[p]etitioner on April 10, 1997 for the refund petitioner did not present its 1996 income tax return
The Case of P3,159,687.00 representing excess or unused to disclose its total income tax liability, thus making
creditable withholding taxes for the year 1995. The it difficult to determine whether such excess tax
instant petition was subsequently filed on April 18, payments were utilized in 1996.
Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 1997.
45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the January 10, Hence, this Petition.[5]
2002 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- Respondent, in his Answer, averred, among others,
GR SP No. 58838. The assailed Decision disposed as that:
follows: The Issue
1) Petitioner has no cause of action;
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
instant petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Petitioner raises this sole issue for our
Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. Costs 2) Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural consideration:
against Petitioner.[3] requirements set out in Section 5 of Revenue
Regulations No. [(RR)] 12-94;
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when, Tax Refund [the] claim for x x x refund within two years after the
while purportedly requiring petitioner to submit its Allowed by NIRC payment of the tax.
1996 annual income tax return to support its claim for
refund, nonetheless ignored the existence of the tax Applying the aforequoted legal provisions, if
return extant on the record the authenticity of which A perusal of this provision shows that a taxable the excess income taxes paid in a given taxable
has not been denied or its admissibility opposed by corporation is entitled to a tax refund when the sum year have not been entirely used by a taxable
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[6] of the quarterly income taxes it paid during a taxable corporation against its quarterly income tax liabilities
year exceeds its total income tax due also for that for the next taxable year, the unused amount of the
year. Consequently, the refundable amount that is excess may still be refunded, provided that
shown on its final adjustment return may be credited, the claim for such a refund is made within two years
The Courts Ruling at its option, against its quarterly income tax after payment of the tax. Petitioner filed its claim in
liabilities for the next taxable year. 1997 -- well within the two-year prescriptive period.
Thus, its unused tax credits in 1995 may still be
The Petition is partly meritorious. Petitioner is a corporation liable to pay income refunded.
taxes under Section 24 of the NIRC. Hence, it is
a taxable corporation. In 1995, it reported that it had Even the phrase succeeding taxable year in the
excess income taxes that had been paid for and on its second paragraph of the said Section 69 is a
Sole Issue: limitation that applies only to a tax credit, not a tax
Entitlement to Tax Refund behalf by its withholding agents; and that, applying
the above-quoted Section 69, this excess should be refund. Petitioner herein does not claim a tax credit,
credited against its income tax liabilities for 1996. but a tax refund. Therefore, the statutory limitation
However, it claimed in 1997 that it should get a does not apply.
Section 69 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC)[7] provides: refund, because it was still unable to use the
excess income taxes paid in 1995 against its tax
liabilities in 1996. Is this possible? Stating the Income Payments Merely
Sec. 69. Final adjustment return. -- Every corporation
argument otherwise, may excess income taxes paid in Declared Part of Gross Income
liable to tax under Section 24 shall file a final
1995 that could not be applied to taxes due in 1996
adjustment return covering the total taxable income
be refunded in 1997?
for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of
the quarterly tax payments made during the said Second, to be able to claim a tax refund, a
The answer is in the affirmative. Here are the
taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the taxpayer only needs to declare the income payments
reasons:
entire taxable net income of that year the corporation it received as part of its gross income and
shall either: to establish the fact of withholding.