EN BANC

[A.C. No. 8335. April 10, 2019.]

AMALIA R. CENIZA, complainant , vs. ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA,

JR., respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

The abandonment by an attorney of his legitimate family in order to

cohabit with a married woman constitutes gross immorality that warrants his
disbarment. 1
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received the complainant's
letter-complaint denouncing the immoral conduct committed by her
husband, a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 2 She submitted
therewith her affidavit detailing the grounds for her denunciation. 3
The complainant stated that she and the respondent were married on
November 12, 1989 at the Sacred Heart Parish in Cebu City; that in time they
had two children, Marie Agnes (Agnes) and Christopher Chuck; 4 that on April
21, 2008, he told her that he would be attending a seminar in Manila, but
because she had some business to attend to in General Santos City, he
seemingly agreed to her request to forego with his trip to Manila; and that
upon her return from General Santos City on April 26, 2008, however, he had
already moved out of their home, taking along with him his car and personal
belongings.
On May 23, 2008, the complainant went to the Mandaue City Hall
where the respondent worked as a legal officer in order to inquire about his
situation. She learned from members of his staff that they had suspected
him of carrying on an extra-marital affair with one Anna Fe Flores Binoya
(Anna). On the next day, the complainant, accompanied by her daughter and
a nephew, went to the address provided by the staff to verify the
information. They were able to meet Anna's sister who informed them that
she had moved out of their address; that Anna and her second husband,
Atty. Eliseo Ceniza, Jr., the herein respondent, had been living together in
Aldea Subdivision; and that in the evening of said date the complainant and
her daughter proceeded to the new address where they found and
confronted the respondent, who simply denied having committed any
wrongdoing. aDSIHc

On July 9, 2008, the respondent commenced a civil action seeking the

declaration of nullity of his marriage with the complainant, 5 alleging her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
On August 11, 2008, the respondent visited the complainant at work
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and requested her to agree to the nullification of their marriage. She refused
and instead pleaded with him to avoid displaying his paramour in public. Her
pleas notwithstanding, he continued with the illicit relationship.
On November 18, 2008, the complainant brought a complaint for
immorality against the respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-V-
A-10-0345-G).
On April 2, 2009, the complainant sent a letter to President Macapagal-
Arroyo alleging therein that her husband had abandoned her and their
children in order to live with another woman.
On May 18, 2009, the Presidential Action Center of the Office of the
President forwarded the complainant's letter to President Macapagal-Arroyo
to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). 6 In due course, the OBC directed
the respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
On October 26, 2009, the respondent filed his comment, 7 wherein he
denied having engaged in immoral conduct and maintained that Anna had
only been a business partner. He insisted that he had moved in with his
parents after leaving their family home; and that he had left the complainant
because her behavior had become unbearable.
In the meantime, on August 5, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman
issued its decision in OMB-V-A-10-0345-G, 8 in which it found the respondent
guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for having an extra-marital affair
with a woman in violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees which required that:
. . . all public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable
to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism
and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest. 9
The Office of the Ombudsman disposed:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby
rendered finding respondent ELISEO B. CENIZA guilty of Disgraceful
and Immoral Conduct. The said respondent is hereby meted the
penalty of SUSPENSION from the service for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS without pay with a stern warning that subsequent
violations of similar nature will be dealt with a more severe penalty.
10 ETHIDa

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld

the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman. 11

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

On October 7, 2010, Commissioner Salvador Hababag of the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), to which the
complaint against the respondent had been referred for investigation,
submitted his findings and recommended the dismissal of the complaint,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 opining that the respondent be cautioned to be more circumspect in his
actuations to avoid the impression of committing immorality.
Commissioner Hababag rendered the following observations, to wit:
The issue is whether or not respondent is guilty of immorality in
his relationship with Anna Fe Binoya.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community.
To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer's conduct must
not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
(Emma T. Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes A.C. No. 6486 September
22, 2004).
Upon the other hand good moral character is a requirement not
only upon one's application for admission but it is rather a continuing
requirement even after admission for the enjoyment of the privilege
to practice. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
(Boyong vs. Oblema, 7 SCRA 859).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
recommended that the administrative suit be dismissed but with
WARNING to the respondent to be more circumspect in his actuation
to avoid the impression of committing immorality. 12
On February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued its Resolution
No. XX-2013-148 adopting the recommendation of Commissioner Hababag,
13 to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE as it is hereby unanimously

ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," and
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby
DISMISSED. However, the Warning imposed against respondent is
hereby ordered deleted.
On February 26, 2014, the case was considered closed and terminated
for failure of the complainant to seek a reconsideration or appeal by petition
for review. 14
On June 4, 2014, however, the complainant transmitted a letter of
appeal vis-à-vis the resolution of February 26, 2014, attaching thereto her
motion for reconsideration. 14 cSEDTC

Thereupon, the Court referred the case to the OBC for report and
evaluation.
Upon the recommendation of the OBC, 15 the Court set aside its
resolution of February 26, 2014, and required the respondent to comment on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the complainant's motion for reconsideration. 16

On February 23, 2016, the Court promulgated a resolution referring the

case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. 17
On March 1, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No.
XXII-2017-889 denying the motion for reconsideration.

Issue

Should the respondent be disciplined for the actions attributed to him

by the complainant?

Ruling of the Court

We disagree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors

for the dismissal of the charge of immorality.
It appears to us that Commissioner Hababag utterly failed to
conscientiously discharge his responsibility as the factfinder; and that he
also did not properly appreciate the facts in relation to the relevant laws and
the canons of ethics. All that he accomplished was to rehash the principles
of law that he believed were applicable, but without calibrating such
principles to whatever facts were found by him to be established. He did not
even explain why the principles were relevant to the case of the respondent.
Such nonchalant discharge of the responsibility of fact-finding was almost
perfunctory, certainly lackluster, and bereft of the requisite enthusiasm.
What makes it worse for the timid, if not lethargic, recommendation was the
unquestioning affirmance by the IBP Board of Governors, which seemingly
failed to even notice the glaring inadequacy.
For sure, the finding of insufficient evidence against the respondent
was unwarranted. He had not even put forward anything of substance in his
defense. He had been content with merely denying the imputed wrongdoing,
but his denial did not disprove the substantial evidence adduced against
him. He had been sufficiently shown to have abandoned his legitimate
spouse and family in order to live with a married woman. AIDSTE

The findings made by the Office of the Ombudsman in the

administrative case brought against the respondent more than sufficed to
show his immorality, thereby showing his failure to live up to the legal and
ethical obligations of a lawyer. In this regard, we adopt and reiterate the apt
findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, to wit:
Respondent is adamant in his denial that he has a relationship
with Binoya. He insists that complainant's accusation that he was
having an affair with Binoya was purely speculative and unsupported
by evidence.
Complainant, for her part, presented affidavits not only of their
daughter, Marie Agnes ("Marie"), but also of two others, namely:
Roberto Joseph Galvan ("Galvan") and Gabriel Jadraque ("Jadraque").
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Marie declared, in part, that:
9. That we found out on May 24, that he had
another woman named Anna Fe Flores Binoya, and he
was currently living with her in Block 11, Lot 27, Aldea
Subd., Timpolok, Lapulapu City.
10. That I was there in Umapad dump site when
I met Myrna Flores, Ann's mother, Ann and Ann's
daughter. She tried to deny her relationship with my
father, but just a few minutes after, I heard her three
aunts tell us that she had a new husband. She identified
the new husband as Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr.
Meanwhile, Galvan alleged that:
2. That I have been living at Aldea Buena
Subdivision, Timpolok, Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City since
February 2005;
3. That I regularly stroll in our subdivision on
board my bicycle or motorcycle with my kids;
4. That on several occasions in the month of
December 2008 and January 2009, I saw the black Honda
care (sic) with plate no. YDX 692 or sometimes the red
Toyota Corolla care (sic) with plate no. GEJ 877 belonging
to ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR., parked in front of the
house located on Block 11 Lot 27 of Aldea Buena
Subdivision;
5. That more particularly, I have seen these
vehicles parked for long periods of time and in some days
overnight at the said place;
6. That on December 22, 2008 at around 8:00
PM, I personally saw ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR. taking
dinner, half-naked, facing the table in the above-
mentioned house together with a woman whom I later
identified as ANN FLORES from the picture that AMALIA R.
CENIZA showed me;
7. That I saw them again inside the house on
December 23, 2008 at around nine o'clock in the morning
up to past twelve o'clock noontime; AaCTcI

Finally, Jadraque averred that:

That sometime on the first week of January 2009,
Mrs. Amalia R[.] Ceniza approached me and sought
assistance to conduct a surveillance of her husband's
activities.
That Mrs. Ceniza provided me information that her
husband has a girlfriend who is residing at blk 11, lot
27[,] ALDEA BUENA SUBD.[,] Timpolok[,] Lapu-Lapu City
Cebu, which she also believed that her husband
frequently slept there at night and most of the time uses
their car a RED TOYOTA with LTO plate GEJ-877;
That on the nineth(sic) of January Mrs. Ceniza
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 contacted me thru my mobile phone that the classes of
her daughter will end at 6:30 in the afternoon at Cebu
Doctor's College at Mandaue City and her husband will be
the one to pick up and brought [her] home.
That at about 6:00 in the afternoon that day[,] I
went ahead with a videocam with me in Blk 11, Lot 27[,]
ALDEA BUENA SUBD.[,] Timpolok[,] Lapu-lapu City and
strategically positioned myself in order to observed(sic)
the place and the activities of the people in the
surroundings;
That few minutes after I saw a RED TOYOTA with
LTO plate GEJ-877 approaching the place this time I
remembered the car mentioned by Mrs. Ceniza that [was]
frequently driven by her husband, so I immediately
turn[ed] on the video cam, and while the tape is
running[,] I saw the RED TOYOTA with LTO Plate GEJ-877
parked in front of the house #27[,] at the same time[,] I
saw one lady [who] went out from the house and
proceeded to the gate and unlocked it then she went back
inside the house;
That a moment after, one man went out from the
driver aside of the RED TOYOTA with LTO Plate # GEJ-877
wearing white T-shirt and proceeded to the house #27,
he opened the gate[,] went inside, then he locked it and
proceeded to the main door of the house where the lady
who unlocked the gate waited near the main door;
(sic) That later[,] I identify (sic) the man who went
out from n the RED TOYOTA with LTO Plate GEJ-877 and
proceeded to the house #27 as ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA
JR.
Complainant likewise proffered photographs proving her claim
that respondent frequents Binoya's house, as well as, proofs that the
place which her husband visits was indeed owned by Binoya.
Complainant also adduced evidence to the effect that facts of
marriage appear in the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Cebu City,
between Binoya and a certain Ebrahaim Angeles Yap who were
married on 18 October 2002 at Al Khariah Mosque, San Nicolas,
Mambaling, Cebu City. The corresponding Certificate of Marriage was
likewise submitted.
Vis-à-vis complainant's overwhelming allegations, respondent
offered only self-serving denials. It is elementary that denials are
weak especially if unsupported by evidence. Denial is an intrinsically
weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility.
It bears stressing that aside from his general claim that
complainant only wanted to destroy his reputation and that the
instant complaint is purely a vendetta on her part, respondent did not
even attempt to present countervailing evidence to substantiate his
bare allegations.
No less than respondent's own daughter, Marie Agnes, spoke
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 her piece about the nature of her father's association with Binoya. His
daughter is a budding teen-ager and has already attained a certain
level of maturity to understand the dynamics of the relationship of
her parents. EcTCAD

Moreover, the photographs and declarations of Galvan and

Jadraque negate respondent's assertion that he merely visits Binoya
as a business associate. His vehicles were seen in front of Binoya's
house for long periods of time and in some days, on overnight stays.
He was also seen in Binoya's house half-naked while having a meal.
Under the prevailing circumstances, these cannot be deemed as
actuations of a business partner or the usual business meetings as
respondent insists.
It is true that complainant was unable to present photograph/s
of respondent and Binoya together. Still, from the foregoing, she has
given several pieces of evidence which yield the unmistakable
conclusion that respondent and Binoya are having an illicit affair.
Under the present scheme of things, these circumstances meet the
requirement of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings. In
the extant case, there is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that respondent
and Binoya are engaged in an illicit relationship.
We are cognizant of the fact that cases like this usually entail a
'He said-She said' version. However, complainant was able to build
her case against respondent. As afore-discussed, complainant
presented evidence to support her claims. There were documentary
evidence and affidavits proving, to the best of her ability, her
accusations against respondent. 19
The CA upheld the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, observing
as follows: 20
Petitioner [Atty. Ceniza] maintains that the insinuations and
accusations that he is having a relationship with Anna Fe Binoya is
unfounded and baseless. Petitioner claims that he had a friendly
relationship with the family of Anna Fe, and that they are far from
being intimate. Petitioner contends that public respondent based its
findings purely on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner emphasizes
that not even a picture of him and Anna Fe was ever presented.
Instead, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by public respondent
at most would only prove that indeed the petitioner visited Anna Fe
at her residence. A grave charge of disgraceful and immoral conduct
according to petitioner requires direct and competent evidence which
is absent in the extant case.
Petitioner's protestations fail to persuade. Evidence on record is
awash of the immoral and disgraceful conduct of petitioner. We find
no reason therefore to disturb the findings of public respondent that
petitioner is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.
xxx xxx xxx
In the face of the evidence presented by private respondent,
the bare denial and self-serving statements of petitioner crumble. The
positive and categorical assertions of private respondent and the
uncontradicted statements of the witnesses that they saw petitioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 staying overnight at Anna Fe's house on numerous occasions, have
sufficiently established the administrative liability of petitioner. They
reasonably and logically lead to the conclusion that petitioner was
intimately and scandalously involved with Anna Fe. In fact, petitioner
even admitted having visited Anna Fe's home several times but
claimed that Anna Fe is her distant relative and client. If this was so,
petitioner could have presented proof showing his business
transaction with Anna Fe. Also, petitioner's claim that Anna Fe is his
distant blood relative is wanting of any evidence. Nonetheless, if
petitioner and Anna Fe are indeed relatives, this fact would not help
prove petitioner's innocence from the charge of immoral conduct.
Rather, it would only make petitioner's actions appear more
scandalous and distasteful and would only tend to validate
petitioner's inclination to thoughtless indiscretions.
Also quite untenable is petitioner's protestation that the
evidence presented would prove at most his causal visits to his friend
and relative Anna Fe. In his vain attempt for absolution, petitioner
pointed out that neither a single photograph of him and Anna Fe
going out together was ever presented nor even an allegation that
they were seen holding hands or that they had a 'friendly kiss, or
beso-beso.' HSAcaE

It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to

maintain intimate relations with another person of the opposite sex
other than his or her spouse. In the context of and during such an
illicit affair, acts which are otherwise morally acceptable (such as
having lunch or dinner, working overtime or watching a movie
together) become tainted with immorality when done by a married
man or woman with a person not his or her spouse. These otherwise
innocent acts (like petitioner's casual visits to Anna Fe's house and
his overnight stays) are deemed unclean because they are done in
furtherance of and in connection with something immoral.
Moreover, immorality is not confined to sexual matters, but
includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of
corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful,
flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions
of respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate
attitude toward good order and public welfare.
The Court will not deviate from the findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman as fully affirmed by the CA.
The members of the legal profession must conform to the highest
standards of morality because the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandated them so, to wit:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
There is no question that a married person's abandonment of his or her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. The
offense may even be criminal — either as concubinage or as adultery.
Immoral conduct, or immorality, is that which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. As a basis of disciplinary action, such immoral
conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. 21 That the illicit partner is himself or herself
married compounds the immorality.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. The Court will exercise its disciplining authority only if the case
against the respondent is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence. Given the serious and far-reaching consequences of disbarment,
only a clearly preponderant showing can warrant the imposition of the harsh
penalty of disbarment. 22 Preponderance of evidence means that the
evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other; it means evidence that is more convincing as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 23HESIcT

Herein, the complainant presented clearly preponderant evidence

showing that the respondent, while being lawfully married to her, had
maintained an illicit relationship with a married woman. It is of no moment
that she presented no direct evidence of the illicit relationship between him
and his mistress; or that her proof of his immorality was circumstantial.
Direct evidence is that evidence which proves a fact in issue directly without
any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in
issue; the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial
evidence. 24 The lack of direct evidence should not obstruct the adjudication
of a dispute, for circumstantial evidence may be available for the purpose.
The Rules of Court has really made no distinction between direct evidence of
a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may
be inferred. 25 Thus, for the respondent to insist that the complainant did not
discharge her burden of proof because she did not adduce direct evidence of
the immorality is utterly fallacious. As the records amply indicated, the
circumstantial evidence adduced herein compelled the conclusion that he
had abandoned the complainant and their children in order to cohabit with
his married mistress.
Time and again, the Court has pointed out that when the integrity or
morality of a member of the Bar is challenged, it is not enough that he or she
denies the charge, for he or she must meet the issue and overcome the
evidence presented on the charge. He or she must present proof that he or
she still maintains the degree of integrity and morality expected of him or
her at all times. 26 The respondent failed in this regard.
AcICHD

In keeping with the high standards of morality imposed upon every

lawyer, the respondent should have desisted from the illicit relationship with
his mistress, and should have avoided the impression on the part of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 public that he was defying the moral standards required of him. 27 His
leaving his wife and family to cohabit with his married mistress definitely
transgressed the clearly-defined bounds of decency and morality. His
transgression inflicted on his wife and children a lot of suffering, including
depression, as borne out by one child's attempt at suicide out of despair for
what he had caused to their family. These circumstances were more than
sufficient to establish the charge of gross immorality.
That the immoral conduct of the respondent pertained to his private life
did not diminish the gravity of his ethical violation. In Advincula v. Advincula,
28 we have exhorted all lawyers to always conduct themselves in a manner

as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that they are
flouting the moral standards of the legal profession, thusly:
. . . it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court,
must not only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance
with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically,
a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required not only to
refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also
to conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law
is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals,
whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to
them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession
of legal learning.
Indeed, any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or
disbarred even if the misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long
as the misconduct evinces his or her lack of moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. 29 Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and
reliable at all times, for a person who cannot abide by the laws in his private
life cannot be expected to do so in his professional dealings. 30
In view of the foregoing, the respondent's immoral conduct violated
Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We now deal with the penalty to be imposed.
I n Narag v. Narag, 31 the Court disbarred the respondent attorney for
abandoning his family and living with his paramour. In Dantes v. Dantes, 32
the Court disbarred the respondent attorney for having maintained two illicit
relationships, thereby not keeping up with the strict requirements of law for
the continued practice of the noble profession. In Bustamante-Alejandro v.
Alejandro, 33 disbarment was also imposed on the respondent who had
abandoned his wife and maintained an illicit affair with another woman.
Likewise, in Guevarra v. Eala, 34 disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer
who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married woman while he was
also married.
By his scandalous and highly immoral conduct, therefore, the
respondent showed that he did not possess the requisite good moral
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 character needed for the continued practice of law. He deserves the extreme
penalty of disbarment.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY.
ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR. guilty of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01
and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; DISBARS him from
the practice of law effective upon receipt of this decision; and ORDERS his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Let a copy of this decision be attached to the respondent's personal
record in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Furnish a copy of this decision to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator
for dissemination to all courts of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED. TAIaHE

Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Caguioa, A.B. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J.C.
Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo * and Jardeleza, *** JJ., are on official leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, *** J., is on leave.
Leonen, J., I concur. See separate opinion.

Footnotes

* On official leave.

** On leave.
*** On official leave.

1. Rollo , pp. 46-47.

2. Id.

3. Id. at 6.

4. Id. at 6.
5. Rollo , pp. 24-29.

6. Id. at 45.

7. Id. at 110-117.
8. Id. at 429-451.

9. Id. at 449.
10. Id. at 450.

11. Id. at 499-514.

12. Rollo , p. 923.

13. Id. at 367.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 14. Id. at 371. n

14. Rollo , pp. 520-521.

15. Id. at 478-490.

16. Id. at 491.

17. Id. at 517.

19. Rollo , pp. 443-448.

20. Docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 06367, May 12, 2015, pp. 509-512.
21. Advincula v. Advincula, A.C. No. 9226, June 14, 2016, 793 SCRA 237, 248.

22. Cawaling v. Menese , A.C. No. 9698, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 304, 313-
314.

23. Castro v. Bigay, Jr., A.C. No. 7824, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 274, 280.
24. Gardner, Criminal Evidence, Principles, Cases and Readings, West Publishing
Co., 1978 ed., p. 124.

25. See People v. Ramos , G.R. No. 104497, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 191, 198-
199; citing Robinson v. State, 18 Md. App. 678, 308 A2d 734 (1973).

26. Fabie v. Real, A.C. No. 10574, September 20, 2016, 803 SCRA 388, 397.

27. Advincula v. Advincula, A.C. No. 9226, June 14, 2016, 793 SCRA 237, 248.
28. Id. at 247-248.

29. Manaois v. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5364, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 359, 363.
30. Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, A.C. No. 4256, February 13, 2004, 422
SCRA 527, 532.

31. A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998, 291 SCRA 451.

32. A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 582.
33. A.C. No. 4256, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 527, 533.

34. A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "form" in the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Duplicity of
Footnote 14.
  Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
Missing Footnote 18.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com