QUIZ IN LAW ON EVIDENCE 3

1.
a) The requirements for admissibility in evidence of entries in official records as an
exception to the hearsay rule are the following:
(1) The entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
(2) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by
such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
and
(3) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by
him, which must have been acquired by the public officer or other person
personally or through official information.

b) The reasons for such admissibility are necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity
consists in the convenience and difficulty of requiring the official’s attendance as
a witness, so that the public business will not be deranged. Trustworthiness, on
the other hand, consists in the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties.

c) People v. Manuel Corpuz

G.R. No. 215320 – February 28, 2018
Martires, J.

I. Facts:
Accused-appellant, Manuel Corpuz, was charged with two counts of
murder. The trial court found him guilty on the weight of witnesses presented by
the prosecution. Accused-appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his
conviction was based mainly on the testimony of Leonilo, who, however, is not a
credible witness. He points out that the police blotter, which states that the
suspect was still unknown, clearly contradicts Leonilo’s testimony that he actually
saw accused-appellant hack the two victims. Thus, he claims that the trial court
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This, notwithstanding, the CA
affirmed his conviction.

II. Issue:
Whether or not trial court and the appellate court erred in convicting
accused-appellant despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt

III. Ruling:
No, the trial court and appellate court did not err.

Entries in the police blotter are not evidence of the truth thereof, but
merely of the fact that the entries were made. Affidavits executed before the
police or entries in such police blotters cannot prevail over the positive testimony
 given in open court. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled
to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from
either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquiries. Without
the aid of such, the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral
circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory
and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject.

In this case, Leonilo positively identified accused-appellant as the person

who hacked the two victims. He was certain that it was the latter whom he saw
having known him for years prior to the incident. Moreover, Leonilo offered
sufficient explanation regarding the apparent inconsistencies between his
testimony and the police blotter. Such explanation clarified that he had no part in
the apparent inconsistencies caused by the contents of the police blotter. Indeed,
he merely reported what he witnessed; whether the police officer accurately
recorded his report is beyond his control. Thus, the statement in the said police
blotter to the effect that the suspect was unknown could in no way prevail over
his positive identification of accused-appellant as the person who hacked and
killed the victims.

Accused-appellant’s conviction is affirmed.

d) Yes, a medico-legal report prepared by a government physician who examined

and interviewed a minor rape victim can be admissible as proof of age, provided
that it is accompanied with the documentary or testimonial evidence prescribed in
the guidelines laid down by jurisprudence.

In People v. Bolo where the accused-appellant was convicted for the

crime of rape by sexual assault committed against his five-year old daughter, the
medico-legal report prepared by a government physician was admitted in
evidence to prove the tender age of the victim because the same was
accompanied with other documentary and testimonial evidence. Although the
prosecution was not able to produce the prescribed documentary evidence to
prove the minority of the victim, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice and
fairness, appreciated the same to prove the victim’s age.

In giving weight to the medico-legal report prepared by the government

physician, the Court held that since the said physician took an oath as a civil
service official, it means that she is competent to examine persons and issue
medical certificated which will be used by the government. As such, the medico-
legal report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of her
functions and duties.

The same was not the case in People v. Gozo which involves the
statutory rape of a six-year old minor. The medico-legal prepared by the
government physician who examined the victim was not appreciated in this case
because no other documentary evidence or other authentic documents were
 offered to prove the age of the victim and there was no explanation why none
was presented. Neither was there testimonial evidence from the concerned
individuals to establish her age, as only the medico-legal testified as to the
victim’s age.

While the medico-legal may have testified as to her age, the same could
not be admitted, as he was not among the individuals enumerated in the
guidelines who may testify in case the birth certificate or authentic documents
were lost or otherwise unavailable. The testimony of the medico-legal in this case
could be regarded as hearsay, as he has no personal knowledge of the victim’s
age, as it was only relied to him.

2.
a) The reasons for admissibility of commercial lists are also necessity and
trustworthiness. Necessity because of the usual inaccessibility of the person
responsible for the compilation of matters contained in it. Trustworthiness, on the
other hand, because the authors thereof have no motive to deceive and they
know that unless they prepared it with care and accuracy, their work will have no
commercial or professional value.

b) The requisites for admissibility of commercial lists as an exception to the hearsay

rule are the following:
(1) It is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation;
(2) Such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published
compilation;
(3) Said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation; and
(4) It is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.

3.
a) The reasons for admissibility of learned treatises are necessity and
trustworthiness. Necessity because the ordinary expert witness has no
knowledge derived from his personal observation, he just reproduces
conclusions of others which he accepts. Trustworthiness, on the other hand,
because the learned writers have no motive to misrepresent.

b) The requisites for admissibility of learned treatises are the following:

(1) The court can take judicial notice of it; and
(2) An expert witness testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert
in the subject.

c) A learned treatise is introduced in evidence by the testimony of an expert witness

in the subject.
 4.
a) The requisites for admissibility of testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
are the following:
(1) The testimony or the depositor of a witness is deceased or unable to
testify;
(2) The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative;
(3) It involves the same parties;
(4) It relates to the same matter; and
(5) The adverse party having had the opportunity to cross-examine.

b) Such testimony is presented as evidence upon compliance with the requisites

and after showing that the witness is unavailable, either in the form of a written
transcript or an oral report of the testimony or deposition.

5.
Residual exception, under the revised Rules, is a statement not specifically
covered by any of the exceptions provided therein, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness. It is admissible if the court determines that: (1) the
statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative
on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can
procure through reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purpose of these rules and the
interests of justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence.

A statement, however, may not be admitted under this exception, unless the
proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or
by the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party
with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the
statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

6.
a) As a general rule, the opinion of a witness is not admissible, except in the cases
provided under the rules.

b) Opinion evidence is admissible in the following cases under the Rules:

(1) the opinion of an expert witness;
(2) the opinion of an ordinary witness regarding the identity of a person about
whom he or she has adequate knowledge, a handwriting with which he or
she has sufficient familiarity, and the mental sanity of a person with whom
he or she is sufficiently acquainted; and
(3) the opinion of an ordinary witness on his or her impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

c) 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. He or she is a witness
 who possesses special knowledge, skill, experience or training regarding a fact in
issue in a case.

d) Jurisprudence dictates that expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the
sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject for their testimony, but
are generally regarded as purely advisory. The courts may place whatever
weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is
inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.

e) Yes, an expert witness may be asked a hypothetical question.

It is another method of eliciting expert opinion testimony, whereby an

expert who has no firsthand knowledge of the material facts surrounding a
particular occurrence can offer an opinion relative therein based upon evidentiary
data assumed to be true. For it to be admissible, it should be so framed as to
state the facts which the interrogating party claims to have been proved and for
which there is support in evidence.

f) There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall

have been acquired. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the
competency of a witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less
valuable than that acquired by study.

g) The requisites for admissibility of expert opinion are:

(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case.

h) “Qualifying the expert witness” means the act of proving that the witness is an
expert. This is done by making him testify, through preliminary questions, as to
his training, education and expertise.
7.
a) Character evidence is any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of
proving that a person acted in a particular way or on a particular occasion based
on the character or disposition of that person.

b) The character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in

determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible,
except in the circumstances provided under the Rules.

In criminal cases, the character of the offended party may be proved if it

tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged. When the accused presents proof of his good moral character
this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where the good character
and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not
 commit the crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of
good character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act
charged against him.

In civil cases, on the other hand, evidence of the moral character of a

party is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the
case.

c) Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind

and morals, distinguishing him from others. Reputation, on the other hand, is the
opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the
people who are acquainted with him.

Character is what a man is; whereas reputation is what he is supposed to be in

what people say he is.

Character depends on the attributes a man possesses. Reputation, on the other

hand, depends on attributes which others believe one to possess.

Character signifies reality, while reputation signifies merely what is accepted to

be reality at present.

d) No, the accused cannot prove the bad moral character of the minor victim who
had been known to have had many boyfriends.

While in ordinary rape cases, the woman’s character as to her chastity is

admissible to show whether she consented to the man’s act, the rule is different
in the case of a minor victim in a rape case. Sec. 30 of the Rules on the
Examination of Child Witness provides that evidence that is offered to prove the
sexual predisposition of the alleged victim or that the alleged victim engaged in
other sexual behavior is not admissible in evidence.

8.
a) Milagros Ilao-Quinay v. Mapile
G.R. No. 154087 – October 25, 2005
Tinga, J.

I. Facts:
Petitioner Ilao-Quianay filed a civil case for Quieting of Title and Damages.
Subsequently, respondent Mapile filed a civil case for Specific Performance and
Declaration of Nullity of Contract, claiming that the subject property had been
sold by Ilao to Ibarra pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale, and that Ibarra, in
turn, sold the property to him. Thereafter, the civil case respectively filed by the
petitioner and respondent was consolidated. After trial, the court rendered
judgment in favor of respondent. The decision was primarily anchored on the
 finding that the conflicting testimonies of the handwriting experts presented by
both parties left it no choice but to favor the notarized deed of sale and to rule
that the same is genuine.

Petitioner, thereafter, filed its motion for consideration; however, it was

denied by the court. Subsequently, it filed its appeal to the Court of Appeals but it
affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Petitioner, on its appeal to the Supreme Court argue that the trial court
and appellate court failed to take into account that the handwriting expert
presented by respondent as his witness, after agreeing to exclude the specimen
signatures which he doubted, finally agreed with the finding of petitioners’ own
expert witness that Ilao’s signature on the deed of sale was forged. On the other
hand, respondent claims that the disagreement of the expert witnesses is
insurmountable that both testimonies should be disregarded.

II. Issue:
Whether or not the trial court and appellate court failed to take into
account the fact that the handwriting expert presented by respondent as his
witness.

III. Ruling:
No, the courts did not fail.

Courts are not bound by expert testimonies. They may place whatever
weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the
case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within
the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of
the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the
reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the
side for whom he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his
statements. The opinion of an expert should be considered by the court in view of
all the facts and circumstances of the case. The problem of the evaluation of
expert testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon
is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.

The Court finds that the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not commit
an error in their evaluation of the testimonies of the handwriting experts. In fact,
we quite agree that the conflicting testimonies should be completely disregarded.

Petition denied.

b) Republic v. Gamir-Consuelo
G.R. No. 218732 – November 12, 2018
J. Reyes, Jr., J.
I. Facts:
Respondent Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc. is a duly
incorporated corporation composed of the heirs of Jose Gamir and Consuelo
Diaz. It is the registered owner of a parcel of land which was the subject of an
Absolute Sale with respondent Republic, through the DPWH. The said land was
allegedly taken by the government in 1957 and forms part of a national road.

Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint, demanding petitioner for the

payment of interest from 1957. The RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal
however, the CA reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the legal interest
accrued from the time of the actual taking of the property until the actual payment
of just compensation to the landowner. Petitioner argues that after the execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale, respondent can no longer claim interest without
violating the Parole Evidence Rule. It further claims that the lack of stipulation
concerning the payment of interest in the contract amounted to an abandonment
thereof.

II. Issue:
Whether or not respondent may still claim payment of interest even after
the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale which does not provide for the
payment thereof

III. Ruling:
No, respondent may no longer claim payment of interest.

Under Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, when the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon, except when: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement; (b) failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties; (c) the validity of the written
agreement; or (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement, the parties
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the Deed of Absolute Sale

between the parties does not contain any provision regarding the payment of
interest. Respondent agreed to convey its property upon full payment of the
purchase price without reservation for any claim of interest. No parol evidence
can be admitted to support respondent’s claim of interest because it never put in
issue in its complaint the ambiguity or validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, or its
failure to reflect the parties’ true intention.

Petition granted.
c) People v. Tipay
G.R. No. 131472 – March 28, 2000
Melo, J.

I. Facts:
Accused-appellant Romeo Tipay was convicted for the raping Susan
Pelaez. During its trial, accused-appellant denied all of the allegations of Susan.
However, the trial court found Susan’s testimony spontaneous and categorical,
and not based on any ill motive. The trial court recognized the probability of her
grandmother pointing out accused-appellant as her aggressor but held that this
did not affect the credibility of her testimony.

Through automatic review of the Supreme Court, the accused argues that
the testimony of Susan Pelaez during trial creates doubt on a very material point
considering that her testimony in court was inconsistent regarding the place of
commission of the crime.

II. Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credibility to the testimony of
Susan.

III. Ruling:
No, the trial court did not err.

It has long been held that the trial court’s evaluation as to the credibility of
witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is
more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which
they gave their testimonies. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if
such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh
conflicting testimonies. Thus, unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain
facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the
case, his assessment on credibility must be respected.

Further, inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness with respect to minor

details or inconsequential matters may be disregarded without impairing the
witness’ credibility, especially when these do not in actuality touch the basic
aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

d) People v. Guinto
G.R. No. 198314 – September 24, 2014
Perez, J.

I. Facts:
Accused-appellant Richard Guinto was charged with violation of Sec. 5,
Art. II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution presented a buy-bust case, with the police
officers who conducted the operation testifying as witnesses. In his statement,
PO1 Familiaria recalled that upon his arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza
told him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of shabu from the accused-
appellant. On the other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two
plastic sachets instead of one. The testimonies of the police officers as to the
signaling of the consummation of the sale were also inconsistent.
Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the trial court still found accused-
appellant guilty of the crime charged. It found credible the straightforward and
categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses on what transpired during
the buy-bust operation.

In view of said inconsistencies, accused-appellant appealed his conviction

and maintained that the inconsistent statements of the apprehending officers with
respect to the circumstances of his illegal arrest and the broken chain of custody
would warrant his acquittal.

II. Issue:
Whether or not the inconsistent statements of the apprehending officers
would warrant his acquittal

III. Ruling:
Yes, the inconsistent statements would warrant his acquittal.

While the Court ruled that generally, the evaluation of the trial court of the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great weight and
generally not disturbed upon appeal. However, such rule does not apply when
the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight
or substance, as in the present case.

Under the objective test, in order to establish the credibility of prosecution

witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, the prosecution must be
able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation – from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase,
the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial
contact was made, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the
illegal drug must be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that law-
abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.
 In light of these guiding principles, the Court rules that the prosecution
failed to present a clear picture on what really transpired on the buy-bust
operation.

Appeal granted.

e) People v. Bolo
G.R. No. 217024 – August 15, 2016
Peralta, J.

I. Facts:
Accused-appellant Rodel Bolo was charged with the crime of rape by
sexual assault committed by inserting his finger into the vagina of his four-year
old daughter. He denied the charges against him, but the RTC found him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant appealed his conviction, arguing
among other things, that the minority of the victim was not proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt since it failed to offer the original or
certified true copy of the victim’s Certificate of Live Birth.

II. Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the victim’s minority

III. Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove the victim’s minority.

The RTC and the CA were correct in taking judicial notice of the age of the
victim, she being alleged to be merely four years old at the time of the
commission of the offense and five years of age when she testified in court.
While it is true that the Court laid down the controlling guidelines in appreciating
age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance in People
v. Pruna, in the interest of justice and fairness, the pieces of evidence and the
circumstances of the instant case should be appreciated in determining whether
the age of the victim was actually established by the prosecution.

In the case at bar, several documents were presented in court indicating

the very young age of the victim; first, while assisted by her grandmother, the
victim stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that she was five years old; second,
the Request for Genital Exam indicated that she was five years old; third, the
Sexual Crime (Protocol) Form stated that she was five years old; fourth, the Initial
Medico-Legal Report showed that she was five years old; fifth, the Medico-Legal
Report reflected that she was five years old; sixth, the personal circumstances of
the victim when she testified stated she was five years old and she likewise
answered that she was five years old when asked about her age; and seventh,
the accused failed to controvert that she was four years old at the time the crime
was committed when the court inquired about it while he was testifying.
 In this particular case, these pieces of evidence, together with the physical
appearance of the victim when she testified, would have been sufficient basis for
the lower court to ascertain the tender age of the victim when the crime was
committed. Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Report prepared by Police S/Insp. Dr.
Ebdane, a government physician who took an oath as a civil service official,
means that she is competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates
which will be used by the government. As such, the Medico-Legal Report carries
the presumption of regularity in the performance of her functions and duties.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.