TITLE: SISON vs PEOPLE

TOPIC: Object (Real) Evidence

FACTS:
A small group of Marcos loyalists converged at the Luneta park. There, they saw Z, a
popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, who angrily ordered the
loyalists “Gulpihin ninyo ang mga Cory hecklers!". As a result, X, who was only
attacked because he was wearing a yellow shirt, died due to the mauling given to him
by the loyalists. Several informations were filed against the identified as Marcos
loyalists charging them with the murder of X. During trial the prosecution presented
witnesses and in support of their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented
documentary evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various
photographs taken by the media during the mauling.

Accused contended that the photographs were not properly identified, hence, the
court was wrong in admitting the same since the person who took the same was not
presented to identify them.

QUESTION:
Is the contention of the accused correct?

RULING:
NO.
As a rule, Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which
they were produced. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph can
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to
its accuracy.
In this case, the fact that the photographers were not presented to identify the photo’s
given in evidence, will not affect the admissibility of such evidence since their
correctness may be proved by the testimony of other competent witnesses, subject to
the courts impeachment.
Therefore, the contention of the accused is mistaken.