Case Digest Evidence - 2

EVIDENCE: CASE DIGEST

Submitted by: Joanne Rhea D. Alvarina BL-3 To: To: Judge Ritchie B. Reyes ro!essor

PEOPLE V ERGUIZA G.R. No. 171348, November !, ""8 AUSTRIA#$ARNEZ, AUSTRIA#$AR NEZ, %.:

&ACTS:

The lo"er courts charged Larry #rgui$a "ith ra%e. According to the victim& a '3-year-old girl& she "as at the mango orchard "ith her !riends Joy and Ric(y Agbuya& siblings& at around ):** in the a!ternoon "hen her shorts got hoo(ed on the !ence. She claims that her !riends le!t her& "hich gave the accused to ra%e and threaten her to silence. The victim got %regnant and u%on discovery& she "as com%elled to tell the story to her %arents. The !ami !a mily ly o! th thee ac accu cuse sed d al alle lege gedl dly y o! o!!e !ere red d th thee !a !am mil ily y o! th thee vi vict ctim im a com%romise settlement o! one million %esos so that the latter "ill not !ile a case against the accused. +n the other hand& the !amily o! the accused denied the allegation and claims that it is the !amily o! the victim "ho as(ed !or settlement "hich they "ere unable to com%ly "ith because they could not a!!ord it.

Thee ac Th accu cuse sed d %r %res esen ente ted d th thee al alib ibii th that at he "a "ass at th thee ho hous usee o! th thee vict vi ctim im,s ,s !a !ami mily ly at ar arou ound nd ): ):** ** in th thee a! a!te tern rnoo oon n do doin ing g so some me re% re%ai airs rs.. oreover& "hen he arrived home& he "as reuested to !etch the

Juanita hilot Juanita

Angeles to hel% "ith the delivery o! his child. Angeles Angeles testi!ied that he never le!t the side o! his "i!e "hen she gave birth at 3:** am the ne/t day.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.



The victim,s !riend Joy Agbuya testi!ied also that she never brought her brother Ric(y along "ith them to the mango orchard and that she and the victim usually goes there at around ':** in the a!ternoon. She also says that she did not leave her !riend that day "hen the latter,s shorts got hoo(ed on the !ence. During that day& Joy claims that they %arted "ays along their Aunt Beth,s house. 0hen as(ed by the court about their relationshi%& the "itness told that they "ere no longer !riends because they "ere uarrelling since the victim,s mother instructed her to tell another story to the court that she le!t her !riend behind that day.

ISSUE:

0het 0h ethe herr or no nott th thee %r %ros osec ecut utio ion n "a "ass ab able le to %r %rov ovee gu guil iltt be beyo yond nd reasonable doubt.

RULING:

The S1 ruled in !avour ! avour o! the accused and ordered his release.

Based on the !oregoing& the con!licting testimonies o! "itness Joy Agbuya Agbu ya and the com% com%laina lainant& nt& as "ell as the testimonies testimonies o! Juani Juanita ta Angeles Angeles that established the a%%ellant,s alibi %oses some doubt and bar the court !rom the conviction o! ra%e "ith moral certainty. 2ollo"ing the eui%oise rule "ere evidence seems eually balanced& the court is com%elled to rule in !avour o! the accused. 2urthermore& it "ould have been the duty o! the %rosecution to %resent its case "ith such a manner that conviction is inevitable result such that the court "ill not be burdened o! the thought that an innocent man "ill be im%risoned the rest o! his li!e.



inevit ine vitabl ablee con conclu clusio sion. n. 4%o 4%on n the %ro %rosec secuti ution, on,ss !ai !ailur luree to mee meett thi thiss tes test& t& acuittal becomes the constitutional duty o! the 1ourt.

0here!ore& the Decision o! the 1A is reversed and set aside.



'ENSA$IN, %.:

&ACTS:

Tobias o%ened an account "ith #TR+BA56 under the name o! his !ro$en meat business Adam erchandising. Si/ months later& Tobias  a%%l a%%lie ied d !or !or a busi busine ness ss loan loan !rom !rom #TR #TR+B +BA5 A56& 6& "hic "hich h in due due cour course se conducted trade and credit veri!ication and resulted in negative !indings. As collateral& the %ro%erty consisted o! !our %arcels o! land located in alabon 1ity& etro anila "as submitted as a security se curity !or the loan.

7is loan "as restructured to ) years u%on his reuest. 8et& a!ter t"o months& he again de!aulted. Thus& the mortgage "as !oreclosed and the %ro%erty "as sold to #TR+BA56 #TR+BA56 as the lone bidder. bidder.

0hen the 1erti!icate o! Sale "as %resented !or registration to the Registry o! Deeds o! alabon& no corres%onding original co%y o! T1T 5o. -'9)' "as !ound in the registry vault. A1T2 concluded that T1T 5o. -'9)' and the ta/ declarations submitted by Tobias "ere !ictitious& thus recommended the !iling against Tobias o! a criminal com%laint !or esta!a through !alsi!ication o! %ublic documents under %aragra%h ;
The +!!ice o! the 1ity rosecutor o! alabon ultimately charged Tobias Tobias  "ith esta!a through !alsi!ication o! %ublic documents. Tobias Tobias !iled a motion !or reinvestigation& "hich "as granted. 5onetheless& on December ;& ;**;& the 1ity rosecutor o! alabon still !ound %robable cause against



Tobia Tobiass a%%eal a%%ealed ed to the D+J D+J and then then Acting cting Secret Secretary ary o! Justic Justicee issued a resolution directing the "ithdra"al o! the in!ormation !iled against Tobias. +n 5ovember '>& ;**)& Secretary o! Justice Raul ?on$ales denied #TR #TR+B +BA5 A56, 6,ss moti motion on !or !or recon reconsi side derat ratio ion. n. 7enc 7ence& e& #TR #TR+B +BA5 A56 6 challenged the adverse resolutions. #TR+BA56 maintains that "hat the Secretary o! Justice did "as to determine the innocence o! the accused& "hich should not be done during %reliminary investigation@ and the 1A disregarded such la%se.

ISSUE:

0hether or not the 1A erred in dismissing #TR+BA56,s %etition.

RULING:

The S1 a!!irmed the Decision o! the 1A.

4nder the Doctrine o! Se%aration o! o"ers& the courts have no right to directly decide matters over "hich !ull discretionary authority has been delegated to the #/ecutive Branch o! the ?overnment.

The settled %olicy is that courts "ill not inter!ere "ith the e/ecutive determination o! %robable cause !or the %ur%ose o! !iling in!ormation& in the absence o! grave abuse o! discretion. That abuse o! discretion must be %atent and gross as to amount to an evasion o! a %ositive duty or a virtual re!usal to



as "here the %o"er is e/ercised in an arbitrary and des%otic manner by reason o! %assion or hostility.

n this regard& "e stress that %reliminary investigation !or the %ur%ose o! determining the e/istence o! %robable cause is not %art o! the trial. At a %reliminary investigation& the investigating %rosecutor or the Secretary o! Just Justic icee only only dete determ rmin ines es "het "hethe herr the the act act or omis omissi sion on com% com%la lain ined ed o! cons consti titu tute tess the the o!!e o!!enc ncee char charge ged. d. rob robab able le caus causee re!e re!ers rs to !act !actss and and circumstances that engender a "ell-!ounded belie! that a crime has been committed and that the res%ondent is %robably guilty thereo!.

The The cour courtt does does not not lose lose sigh sightt o! the the !act !act that that #TR #TR+B +BA5 A56& 6& a commer commercia ciall ban( ban( dealin dealing g in real real %ro%er %ro%erty ty&& had the duty duty to observ observee due diligence to ascertain the e/istence and condition o! the realty as "ell as the vali validi dity ty and and inte integr grit ity y o! the the docu docume ment ntss bear bearin ing g on the the real realty ty.. ts ts duty duty included the res%onsibility o! dis%atching its com%tetent and e/%erienced re%resentatives to the realty to assess its actual location and condition& and o! investigating "ho "as its real o"ner. 8et& it is evident that #TR+BA56 did not diligently %er!orm a thorough chec( on Tobias Tobias and the circumstances surrounding the realty he has o!!ered as collateral. As such& it had no one to blame but itsel!. erily& ban(s are e/%ected to e/ercise greater care and %rudence than others in their dealings because their business is im%ressed "ith %ublic interest. Their !ailure to do so constitutes negligence on its %art.

etition denied.

Case Digest Evidence - 2

Recommend Documents