People vs Agbayani

People vs Agbayani
G.R. No. 122770. January 16, 1998

Facts:

Eduardo Agbayani was sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106 of Quezon City for raping her 14-year old daughter, Eden. The conviction was based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Dr. Florante Baltazar, the victim and SPO1 Salvador Buenviaje.

The defense, on the other hand, interpose the defense of denial and alibi, and one of the evidence presented was the affidavit of desistance of the victim. However, it was retracted by the victim during the presentation of the rebuttal evidence claiming that she was only pressured by her mother and sister to sign it.

Hence, in this appeal the appellant questioned the credibility of the testimony of the victim in view of her execution of the affidavit of desistance.

Issue: 

Whether or not the testimony is superior than affidavit(s)

Held:

YES. The Court ruled that affidavits, being taken ex parte, are generally considered inferior to the testimony given in open court, and affidavits of recantation have been invariably regarded as exceedingly unreliable, since they can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness who gave it later on changed his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule would make a solemn trial a mockery, and place the proceedings at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. 

The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

It is settled that the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse conviction. The reason being that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases, and that such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the contrary. Thus it has been held that unless the contrary appears in the record, or that it is positively proved that the trial court failed to inform the accused of his right to counsel, it will be presumed that the accused was informed by the court of such right.

In the instant case, the trial court appointed two de oficio counsel who assisted the appellant at his arraignment, one of whom extensively cross-examined the first witness for the prosecution, Dr. Florante Baltazar. Besides, it is only in this appeal that appellant raised the issue of the failure of the trial court to inform him of the right to counsel. At no time did he previously raise it in the trial court despite ample opportunity to do so. His consent to be assisted by counsel de oficio, coupled with said counsel's extensive cross-examination of Dr. Baltazar, may even be considered a waiver of his right to question the alleged failure of the trial court to inform him of his right to counsel.

Vlason Enterprises vs. CA

Vlason Enterprises vs. CA
330 SCRA 26 (1999)
G.R. Nos. 121662-64. July 6, 1999.

Facts:

Ruling that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory, the Court of Appeals ordered the Regional Trial Court to take appropriate action on the urgent ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of execution filed by private respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Trial Court of Manila issued a writ of possession thus placing private respondent in possession of petitioner's barge Lawin. Hence, this petition.

The case filed by private respondent with the trial court involved multiple defendants. Several defendants entered into a compromise agreement with private respondent. A compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. As to these defendants therefore, the trial court Decision had become final. Nevertheless, said decision cannot be said to have attained finality as to petitioner, which was not a party to the compromise. Moreover, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration two days before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. Execution shall issue as matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been duly perfected.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner in this case.

Held:

NO. The sheriff's return showed that the president of petitioner corporation was served summons through his secretary. A summons addressed to a corporation and served on the secretary of the President binds that corporation. The secretary however, should be an employee of the corporation sought to be summoned. In the case at bar, the secretary was not an employee of petitioner but of Vlasons Shipping, Inc. 

Acting under the impression that petitioner had been placed under its jurisdiction, the trial court dispensed with the service on petitioner of new summons for the subsequent amendments of the petition. But the first service of summons on petitioner was invalid. Thus, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Not having been validly served summons, it would be legally impossible to declare petitioner to be in default. A default judgment cannot affect the rights of a party who was never declared in default.