Cases (Suppression of Testimony) Flashcards
Accused Roberto Padrigone, a.k.a. Roberto San Miguel, Jocel Ibanita, Michael San Antonio and Abel Triumpante entered the dwelling of the Contridas sisters at 3:00 a.m. of January 3, 1995, and at knifepoint successively raped Rowena Contridas, a 16 year old lass. The victim became insane after the incident and was not able to testify in Court. Nimfa Contridas, her fourteen year old sister, who was also present that time narrated the incident when her elder sister’s innocence was forcibly violated. The trial court, disregarding the Accused’s defense of denial and alibi, convicted the accused. On appeal, herein Accused-appellant claims that the prosecution suppressed evidence by not presenting Rowena, the victim, when the latter should have had her sane moments. As a consequence, the trial court deprived appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine her when she allegedly declared before the Chief of Police of Buhi that it was only appellant who raped her which declaration became the basis for the latter’s conviction.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure to present as witness the victim of a crime who became insane by reason of such offense amounts to suppression of evidence.
No. The non-presentation of Rowena on the witness stand cannot be considered as suppression of evidence. Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not apply if
(a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
(b) the suppression was not willful;
(c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
(d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case.
First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if the prosecution did not present her as a witness. Instead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand. Second, Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition” and thus “cannot stand judicial proceedings yet.” The non- presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not willful. Third, in any case, while Rowena was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the violation committed on her sister
Mr. Chia and Respondent GTP entered into a contract of sale with assumption of mortgage wherein the latter assumes the former’s indebtedness with Metrobank. Respondent, pursuant to the balance declared by Metrobank prior to the execution of the sale, paid Chia’s loan balance with Metrobank in the amount of P116K+. This notwithstanding, petitioner METROBANK refused to release the real estate mortgage on the subject property despite repeated requests, thus prompting respondent GTP to file an action for specific performance against petitioner METROBANK and Mr. Chia. Metrobank refused to discharge of the real estate mortgage on the claim that the subject property still secures “other unliquidated past due loans” as there exist a stipulation in subject Deeds of Mortgage that mortgagors’ debts subsequently obtained would be covered by the same security. Hence, the payment made by GPT does not extinguish the mortgage. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent. On appeal, CA reversed the decision. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. With this unfavorable turn of events, respondent GTP, filed a motion for reconsideration with alternative prayer to require METROBANK to furnish appellee (GTP) of the alleged unpaid balance of Mr. Chia.” At the re-scheduled date of oral arguments where METROBANK was supposed to bring before the CA the current statement of the mortgage debt of Mr. Chia secured by the deeds of mortgage sought to be released, METROBANK’s counsel did not appear. Consequently, CA reversed its previous decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure of the mortgagee to present the proof of loan secured by the mortgage estopped him from further asserting the existence of such liability.
Yes. It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his adversary. The scheduled oral arguments before the CA was supposed to be Metrobank’s golden opportunity to prove the existence the “other unliquidated past due loans” which is the basis of its refusal to release the mortgage property. But Metrobank failed to appear thereon. No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his power to prove a fact, if it exists, which, if proved, would benefit him, his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does not exist.”
