DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PEOPLE VS VIBAR

ST. MARTIN POLYCLINIC vs LWW CONST. CORP. FACTS:

FACTS:

Doctrine: At any rate, the fact that Raguindin tested
positive for HCV could not have been properly established
since the courts a quo, in the first place, erred in admitting
and giving probative weight to the Certification of the
General Care Dispensary, which was written in an unofficial
language. Section 33, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court states
that: Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial
language.—Documents written in an unofficial language shall
not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of
proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have
such translation prepared before trial. A cursory examination
of the subject document would reveal that while it contains
English words, the majority of it is in an unofficial
language. Sans any translation in English or Filipino provided
by respondent, the same should not have been admitted in
evidence; thus their contents could not be given probative
value, and deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated
therein. Moreover, the due execution and authenticity of the
said certification were not proven in accordance with Section
20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Doctrine: Vibar also laments that there was no physical
evidence of penetration to support AAA’s claims of
defilement, noting that there were no medical reports that
indicated even the slightest of penetration. It must be
remembered, however, that medical reports are merely
corroborative in character and are not essential for a
conviction because the credible testimony of a victim would
suffice. Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides
that in order for any private document offered as authentic
to be admitted as evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who saw
the document executed or written; or (2) by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
The authentication of private document before it is received
in evidence is vital because during such process, a witness
positively identifies that the document is genuine and has
been duly executed or that the document is neither spurious
nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress.

It has been settled that an unverified and unidentified

private document cannot be accorded probative value. In
addition, case law states that “since a medical certificate
involves an opinion of one who must first be established as
an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless
the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his
qualifications.

Similarly, the HCV Confirmatory Test Report issued by the

Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia should have also been
excluded as evidence. Although the same may be considered
a public document, being an alleged written official act of an
official body of a foreign country, the same was not duly
authenticated in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court. While respondent provided a translation
thereof from the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos,
Bureau of External Relations, Office of the President, the
same was not accompanied by a certificate of the secretary
of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or any officer in the foreign service
of the Philippines stationed in Saudi Arabia, where the record
is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.