Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Expert Witnesses; Factors Considered; Words and Phrases; An

expert witness is “one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter
of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he
proposes to express an opinion.”—An expert witness is “one who belongs to the profession
or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion.” There is no definite
standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in
order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present: (1) training
and education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case, and (3)
presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. The question of
whether a witness is properly qualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the
discretion of the trial court.

Facts: The dispute involves a parcel of land situated along Maceda (formerly Washington) Street,
Sampaloc, Manila, containing an area of approximately 105 square meters. This parcel of
land was previously owned and registered in the name of the late Cesar Morelos under
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27604. Cesar is the uncle of petitioner Laura Morelos
Bautista, being the brother of her mother, Rosario Morelos.3

Cesar, who was married to Rosario Duran, did not have any children. Rosario died in 1972. Cesar
died of cardiac arrest on April 15, 1982. During his lifetime, Cesar sold and conveyed the
abovementioned parcel of land in favor of petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista, as evidenced
by a “Deed of Absolute Sale” notarized by Luis M. de Guzman. Accordingly, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 254843 was issued in the name of petitioner Laura Bautista.4

Respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos with
Angelina Lim-Gue, instituted a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title with
damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 83-17900, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch VII. At the trial, he presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that the
signature of Cesar Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on his
Residence Certificate were not his. Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 436 SCRA 141, G.R. No.
158015, A.C. No. 4904 August 11, 2004

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An expert witness need not present comparative
microphotographs of test bullets and cartridges to support his findings—examination under
a comparison microscope showing that the test bullet and the evidence bullet both came
from the same gun is sufficient.—We agree with the trial court that P/Inspector Caser
qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics
Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously testified as an expert
witness in at least twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all over the country. An
 expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and
cartridges to support his findings. Examination under a comparison microscope showing that
the test bullet and the evidence bullet both came from the same gun is sufficient. Moreover,
the ballistician conclusively found similar characteristic markings in the evidence, test
cartridges and slugs. People vs. Abriol, 367 SCRA 327, G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001

Same; Same; Same; Handwriting Expert; The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness
of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion
rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue.—As a general rule, forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of
proof lies on the party alleging forgery. In Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, we
held that due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of the forged
documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful; however,
resort to questioned document examiners is not mandatory and while probably useful, they
are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting. Hence, a finding of forgery
does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony
may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of
the

signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. The
authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions
concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute
matters of a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness
of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion
rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The result of examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the
benefit of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best, inconclusive.—The
authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general
characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as
regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades,
that may be found between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive
on the question of the former’s authenticity. The result of examinations of questioned
handwriting, even with the benefit of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best,
inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration, such as the
position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper where the questioned
signature is written, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen and paper
used. These play an important role on the general appearance of the signature. Unless,
therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or
circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much
 weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between a
questioned handwriting and an authentic one. Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 436 SCRA 141,
G.R. No. 158015, A.C. No. 4904 August 11, 2004

In the case at bar, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery
and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was
physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof,
the testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best.
Carmelita Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness,
authenticity and due execution thereof.15 Having been physically present to see the
decedent Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista affix their signatures on the
document, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of petitioners.

Witness Francisco Cruz, Jr. failed to establish the fact that the signature on the Deed of
Absolute Sale was not that of Cesar Morelos. He merely concluded that the document was a
forgery without citing any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Cruz did not point out
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimens of writing, which would ordinarily escape detection by an ordinary lay person.16
Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 436 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 158015, A.C. No. 4904 August 11, 2004

Remedial Law; Evidence; Expert Evidence; Expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the
matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise, and (b) the witness has been qualified
as an expert.—Expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to is one
that requires expertise, and (b) the witness has been qualified as an expert. In this case,
counsel for the petitioner failed to make the necessary qualification upon presenting
Cabamongan during trial. Avelino vs. People, 701 SCRA 477, G.R. No. 181444 July 17, 2013

Rape; Mental Retardates; Witnesses; The mother of an offended party in a case of rape,
though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition of the party, how
she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, is competent to
testify on the matter; It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the
sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity
to observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. People vs.
Duranan, 349 SCRA 180, G.R. Nos. 134074-75 January 16, 2001

It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental
condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the
speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Generally, it is required that
the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he can
testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont said: “A non-expert witness may
give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or
dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact
bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness’ own knowledge and observation, he
having first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as
the basis for his opinion. People vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA 180, G.R. Nos. 134074-75 January 16,
2001

Although the complainant may be a retardate, she is nevertheless competent to testify if she
is able to tell the court what the accused had done to her and to answer the questions of
both the prosecutor and the defense counsel. People vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA 180, G.R. Nos.
134074-75 January 16, 2001

Cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is

called; The trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct
examination merely because he is not cross-examined by the other party.—The cross-
examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called.
The purpose of cross-examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a
witness made on direct examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem
any further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence theretofore
adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what would be believed is the perception of the
court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a
witness on direct examination merely because he is not cross-examined by the other party.
People vs. Fabre, 385 SCRA 185, G.R. No. 146697 July 23, 2002 (Nilagyan ng coconut oil ang
ari nung biktimang babae)

As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when
the witness is a child of tender years13 as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts
without prompting or suggestion.14 Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of
their reluctant lips.15 In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading
questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events
difficult, if not uncertain. People vs. Perez, 397 SCRA 12, G.R. No. 142556 February 5, 2003
(Si Jhonny)

Same; Same; Same; Same; Impeachment; The witness must be given a chance to recollect
and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the
circumstances under which they were made.—Before the credibility of a witness and the
truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior
statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay
the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the
witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to
explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances
under which they were made.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Laying a predicate”; The process of cross-examining a
witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called “laying a predicate” for the
introduction of contradictory statements.—If the witness admits the making of such
contradictory statement, the accused has the benefit of the admission, while the witness has
the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness
denies making any such contradictory statement, the accused has the right to prove that the
witness did make such statement; and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce
the document, secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This
process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is
called in the practice of the American courts “laying a predicate” for the introduction of
contradictory statements. It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid
upon cross-examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to
impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of
the court. People vs. Castillano, Sr., 400 SCRA 401, G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003

Same; Same; Same; Same; Impeachment; The witness must be given a chance to recollect
and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the
circumstances under which they were made.—Before the credibility of a witness and the
truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior
statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay
the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the
witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to
explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances
under which they were made.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Laying a predicate”; The process of cross-examining a
witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called “laying a predicate” for the
introduction of contradictory statements.—If the witness admits the making of such
contradictory statement, the accused has the benefit of the admission, while the witness has
the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness
denies making any such contradictory statement, the accused has the right to prove that the
witness did make such statement; and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce
the document, secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This
process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is
called in the practice of the American courts “laying a predicate” for the introduction of
contradictory statements. It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid
upon cross-examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to
impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of
the court. People vs. Castillano, Sr., 400 SCRA 401, G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003

In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her testimony during the preliminary
examination and her sworn statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any
discrepancies between her present testimony and her testimony during the preliminary
examination and her sworn statement. The appellants did not even mark and offer in
evidence the said transcript and sworn statement for the specific purpose of impeaching her
credibility and her present testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence and
accepted by the trial court, said transcript and sworn statement, cannot be considered by
the court.54 People vs. Castillano, Sr., 400 SCRA 401, G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003

Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.—The
use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section
16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states: “Sec. 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum.—A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded;but in such casethe
writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a
witness may testify from such a writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution.” (Italics supplied.)
Allowing a witness to refer to her notes People vs. Plasencia, 249 SCRA 674, G.R. No. 90198
November 7, 1995

Remedial Law; Evidence; Public Documents; As public documents, they are admissible in
evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness; Not only are
said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they
constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.—There is no question that the
documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are all public documents. As provided in the
Civil Code: ART. 410. The books making up the civil register and all documents relating
thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts
therein contained. As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without
further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when it
disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not present the
records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their authenticity and due
execution since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary.
Moreover, not only are said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary
weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And in the
instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted since neither the private respondent
nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary. Iwasawa vs. Gangan, 705
SCRA 669, G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013 (The unfaithful wife)

Public Documents; Private Documents; The nature of documents as either public or private
determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public documents,
as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and
require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a
private document is any other writing, deed or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some
disposition or agreement is proved or set forth.—The nature of documents as either public
or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public
documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-
authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in
court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or instrument executed by
a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by
which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign
character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document
requires authentication in the manner prescribed under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules:
SEC. 20. Proof of private document.—Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By
anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of
the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be. The requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient
one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules; (b) when the genuineness and
authenticity of the actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the
adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. Asian Terminals, Inc. vs.
Philam Insurance Co., Inc., 702 SCRA 88, G.R. No. 181163 July 24, 2013

Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest
its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties.—Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. “The offer of evidence is necessary because it
is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the
purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper
barren of probative weight.” Aludos vs. Suerte, 673 SCRA 413, G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012
(Market stalls na na kansel)