People vs. Jaca

Evidence concerning the amount or value of transactions conducted by an entity through which an alien is alleged to have intervened in a reserved business is relevant to prove the act of management and operation under the Anti-Dummy Law. Additionally, when doubt arises as to the materiality or relevancy of evidence, it is more consonant with the administration of justice to admit the answer and defer a definitive ruling on admissibility until all the evidence is in.

Respondents Urbano Jaca, Bonifacio Jaca (Filipino citizens), and Go Bian Ling (Chinese citizen) were charged before the Court of First Instance of Davao with a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 108, as amended (the Anti-Dummy Law), in relation to Sections 1 and 5 of Article 13 of the 1935 Constitution. The information alleged that the Jacas entered into a partnership with Go Bian Ling, conveyed an ordinary timber license to that partnership, and permitted Go Bian Ling to act as its manager, thereby allowing an alien to intervene in the management and operation of a forest concession business reserved for Filipino citizens.

• Nature of the Charge: The information alleged that between July 30, 1949 and May 27, 1955, Urbano Jaca and Bonifacio Jaca, Filipino citizens, conspired with Go Bian Ling, a Chinese citizen, to permit the latter to intervene in the management and operation of a timberland business. It specifically averred that Urbano Jaca obtained an ordinary timber license, formed a partnership with Bonifacio Jaca and Go Bian Ling on June 30, 1949 to manufacture lumber, and delivered the concession to the partnership, of which Go Bian Ling was made the manager.
• Prosecution’s Attempted Proof: At the initial stages of trial, the prosecution attempted to prove that respondents were members of the partnership Victor Erickson and Company, doing business under the trade name Mindanao Hardwood Lumber Company. Go Bian Ling, an alien, was the manager. The company manufactured lumber from Urbano Jaca’s timber concession. During 1949-1950, production of third and fourth class lumber reached about 150,000 board feet monthly, sold to Mindanao Commercial Company at P0.11 per board foot — seven centavos below the prevailing open market price of P0.16 for rough lumber and P0.18 for planed lumber, as testified to by accountant Nicolas Santos.
• The Disallowed Question: Fidel Reyes, a witness from Sta. Clara Lumber Company, testified on direct examination that his company purchased logs from Mindanao Hardwood Company. The prosecution then asked: “Regarding the value of the logs delivered by Mindanao Hardwood Lumber Company thru Mr. Go Bian Ling, did you look into the records of your office?” The trial judge motu proprio rejected the question, stating that “the amount of the transactions is not necessarily to proved further regarding this case.” The other respondents objected that the question tended to establish an offense not alleged in the information. The prosecution argued that the line of questioning was meant to show that the value of logs delivered was paid to Mindanao Commercial Company, indicating that Mindanao Hardwood Lumber Company was merely a dummy or front.

• Relevancy to Management and Operation: Petitioner maintained that the disallowed question concerning the value of logs delivered was directly relevant to proving that Go Bian Ling intervened in the management and operation of the timberland business, as charged in the information.

• Irrelevancy: Respondents argued, and the trial court held motu proprio, that the amount or value of the transactions was unnecessary to prove the offense.
• Uncharged Offense: Respondents contended that the evidence aimed to establish an offense not alleged in the information.

• Relevancy of Excluded Testimony: Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the prosecution’s question concerning the value of logs delivered, on the ground that the amount of transactions was irrelevant to the offense charged.

• Relevancy of Excluded Testimony: The exclusion was erroneous. The information charged only one offense — a violation of paragraph 3 of Section 2-a of Commonwealth Act No. 108, as amended, which makes it unlawful for a person to permit an alien not possessing the required qualifications to intervene in the management, operation, administration, or control of a right, franchise, privilege, property, or business reserved to Filipino citizens. The information specifically alleged that the timber license was conveyed to a partnership of which Go Bian Ling was the manager, thereby permitting him to intervene in its operations. The question regarding the value of logs delivered was material to the issue of “management and operation of the business of developing and exploiting a timberland forest.” The financial magnitude of transactions conducted under Go Bian Ling’s management was a circumstance tending to prove the scope and reality of his intervention. Furthermore, even assuming the evidence’s relevancy was doubtful, the better practice is to allow the answer and defer a definitive ruling until all related evidence has been presented, rather than prematurely foreclosing proof that may later be connected. Under the principle drawn from Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, if no connecting testimony is ultimately introduced, the evidence may be excluded or disregarded upon proper motion.

• Provisional Admissibility of Evidence — When doubt exists as to the materiality or relevancy of a question, it is more in keeping with the administration of justice to allow the answer and render a ruling on its admissibility after all the evidence is in. The question of relevancy remains contingent upon suppletory and correlative evidence; if no supporting testimony is later introduced to show its applicability, the court should, upon motion, exclude it or instruct the jury to disregard it. The trial court’s premature exclusion of potentially relevant proof undercuts the prosecution’s ability to establish its case.

• “Even in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of such question, it would be more in keeping with the administration of justice to allow the answer to such question and render the ruling as to its admissibility when all the evidence are in.” — The ratio decidendi guiding trial courts to exercise caution before excluding evidence whose full significance may emerge only in connection with other proof.
• “The question of the relevancy of such evidence, therefore remains to be considered in connection with the suppletory and correlative evidence introduced. If no testimony is introduced tending in any way to show its applicability, the court should on motion of the party against whom it was offered, exclude it from the jury or instruct them to disregard it.” — The quoted authority from Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 1359, which the Court adopted to define the conditional nature of relevancy rulings.

• Section 2-a, Commonwealth Act No. 108 (Anti-Dummy Law), as amended, in relation to Sections 1 and 5, Article 13 of the 1935 Constitution — Enumerates four ways by which the law is violated. Paragraph 3 prohibits permitting an alien not possessing the required qualifications to intervene in the management, operation, administration, or control of a right, franchise, privilege, property, or business reserved to Filipino citizens. The information was construed as charging a violation exclusively under this paragraph, thereby making evidence of the alien manager’s transaction values relevant to prove his intervention.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ.