Del Castillo Case Doctrines
Summaries of case doctrines penned by Justice Del Castillo.
Remedial Law Evidence
G.R. No. 171129, April 6, 2011
A tenant may show that the landlord’s title has expired or been conveyed to another or himself, and he is not estopped to deny a claim for rent if he has been ousted or evicted by title paramount. What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Diega v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015
The requisites for newly discovered evidence are:
1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
2)such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and
3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.
Etom, Jr. v. Aroma Lodging House
G.R. Nos. 173510 & 174099, March 12, 2010
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if:
1) there is more than one circumstance;
2) the facts from which the inferences were derived have been established; and
3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Landbank of the Philippines v. Onate
G.R. No. 192995, November 9, 2015
The fact that a document is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.
Manzanilla v. Waterfields Industries Corporation
G.R. No. 192371, January 15, 2014
The party offering entries made in the course of business must establish that:
1) the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify;
2) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction which they refer;
3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
4) the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant; and
5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business.
Marina Port Services, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Corporation
G.R. No. 177484, July 18, 2014
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through 1) palpable mistake or 2) that no such admission was made.
Marquez v. Espejo
G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015
Evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand.
Paje v. Casino
G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010
There is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule when there is no dispute regarding the contents of the documents.
The Parol Evidence Rule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written document in question and does not base his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the document.
People v. Alberto
G.R. No. 207257, 207276, 207282 & 207366, February 3, 2015
The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.
People v. Baturi
G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010
Corroborative evidence is vital only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness twisted the truth, or that his or her observation was inaccurate.
People v. Bio
G.R. No. 189812, September 1, 2014
Even if an exhibit is not formally offered, the same may still be admitted against the adverse party if:
1) it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
2) it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case.
People v. Cabtalan
G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015
The infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation.
People v. Caga
G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012
Delay in reporting a crime or an unusual incident in a rural area is well-known. It is common for a witness to prefer momentary silence for fear of reprisal from the accused and delay in testifying is insufficient to discredit his testimony.
A dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
People v. Gabuya
G.R. No. 206878, August 22, 2016
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony os credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
People v. Lagangga
G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
People v. Marcelo
G.R. No. 207633, December 9, 2015
The absence of a medical certificate is not fatal for the prosecution in rape cases. In view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party.
People v. Villarino
G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014
The findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
Perla v. Baring
G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010
The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable leading people to act differently. There is no standard form of behavioral response when confronted with a startling or frightful occurrence.
Santos v. National Statistics Office
G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012
A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.
Segiratan v. People
G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010
Courts will only consider evidence that which has been formally offered.
Villamor v. People
G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.