Sison v.

People, 250 SCRA 58, November 6, 1995

Facts: On July 27, 1986, in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution, a rally was scheduled to be
held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Despite being denied a permit, three thousand of them
gathered at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta and started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers
and delivered speeches in between. When the authorities arrived and no permit could be produced, they
were told to disperse. One of the leaders, Atty. Oliver Lozano, turned to his group and said “Gulpihin
ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators,” and a commotion ensued. They eventually fled, and later,
some of them converged at the Chinese garden of Luneta. Another commotion ensued and the loyalists
started attacking persons in yellow, the color of the “Coryistas,” one of which was Salcedo. He was
chased, boxed, kicked and mauled. One Ranulfo Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them,
but several accused came forward and resumed mauling Salcedo despite his pleas for mercy. He died
upon arrival at the Philippine General Hospital of “hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic.”

Issue: Were the photographs of the incident presented properly given evidentiary weight despite lack of
proper identification by their respective photographers?

Held: Yes. 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 value of this kind
of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is
determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime.

The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The
correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed 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. Photographs, therefore, can be identified
by the photographer or by any other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
In this case, the counsel for two of the accused used the same photographs to prove that his clients
were not in any of the pictures and therefore could not have participated in the mauling of the victim.
When the prosecution used the photographs to cross-examine all the accused, no objection was made
by the defense, not until Atty. Lazaro interposed at the third hearing a continuing objection to their
admissibility. The use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-
participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs
are faithful representation of the mauling incident was affirmed when some of the accused identified
themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. The absence of two of the accused in
the photographs, meanwhile, does not exculpate them. The photographs did not capture the entire
sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof. However, the accused were unequivocally
identified by two witnesses.

Doctrine: 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. They can be identified by
the photographer or by any other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.