1] NOT A PARTY TO THE DOCUMENT BUT FAMILIAR WITH THE SIGNATURE OR HAND WRITING

G.R. NOS. 148682-85 November 30, 2005 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ANGEL A. ENFERMO,
Appellant Context: "While it is true that the prosecution did not present the testimony of the NBI officer or
handwriting expert who conducted said examination, the signature of appellant appearing on the questioned checks
was sufficiently established by the testimony of Luz Aramil who has sufficient familiarity with appellant's signature,
having worked with appellant who was under her supervision and had seen documents signed by him." Such opinion
of a non-expert on handwriting is authorized under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court to prove genuineness of a
handwriting. A person is deemed to be acquainted with the handwriting of another where it is shown that, in the
ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have frequently come into his
possession or under his scrutiny or have been habitually submitted to him.
Enter
Clarence
Rule 132, SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of
the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by
the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

2] In case na objectan kame then counter with

Also, in case na objectahan ka since hindi siya "expert witness" Under Rule 130 Sec. 53 (b) of the Rules of
Evidence: Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding... A handwriting with which he or she has suffi cient familiarity

3] No, may mga jurisprudence na di necessarily mandatory mga handwriting experts, although it does help. In
Mendoza v. Fermin (738 Phil. 429, 441), Alcon vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (162 SCRA 833): Due to the
technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of 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. 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, the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny. The judge cannot rely on
the mere testimony of the handwriting expert.