Xindy Ireen R. Wisco 3B January 05, 2010
Rule 130 Judge Bonifacio
Real and Demonstrative Evidence
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.
ADAMCZUK v. HOLLOWAY
13 A.2d 2 (1940)
Facts: The plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against the defendants for personal injuries and property damage arising out of a collision between a car owned and operated by plaintiff, Jack Adamczuk, and a car owend by defendant, Morris Cohen, and driven by Elmer Holloway. A photograph was presented as evidence for the plaintiffs, and Adamczuk identified the roads and buildings appearing in the picture, stating that “the conditions presented by that picture truly represent the conditions of the crossing at the time of this accident except for the fact of daylight or dark.” The photograph was offered in evidence several times, but in each case, no proof could be given as to “who took it, or any identity as to the picture, other than the physical view thereon” or “where the camera was standing, under what conditions it was taken, and whether it was taken with a view to distorting it or not.”
The court ruled against Adamczuk, commenting that he had two days “since adjournment last Friday, to procure the original taker of this photograph and thus establish it in the legal way with the right of cross-examination to defendants’ counsel of the photographer.”
Issue: Was the picture presented in evidence properly denied evidentiary weight due to the absence of proof as to its photographer and the conditions under which it was taken?
Held: No. The rule is well-settled that a photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if verified. It does not have to be verified by the taker. Its verification depends on the competency of the verifying witness and as to that the trial judge must in the first instance decide, subject to reversal for substantial error.
The objection that a photograph may be so made as to misrepresent the object is genuinely directed against its testimonial soundness; but it is of no validity. While a photograph can be deliberately so taken as to convey the most false impression of the object, so also can any witness lie in his words. A photograph can falsify just as much and no more than the human being who takes it or verifies it. There is no more reason to exclude it on such ground.
If a witness is familiar with the scene photographed and is competent to testify that the photograph correctly represents it, it should, if relevant, be admitted.
Doctrine: A photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if verified. It does not have to be verified by the taker. Its verification depends on the competency of the verifying witness and as to that the trial judge must in the first instance decide, subject to reversal for substantial error.
STATE v. TATUM
360 P. 2d 754 (1961)
Facts: William Tousin of Pasco received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. In February, 1960, however, Tousin did not receive his check, which was usually mailed to and left on a window ledge in the hallway of the rooming house where he resided. The check turned out to have been endorsed and cashed at Sherman’s Food Store in Pasco by someone other than Tousin.
Caroline Pentecost, a employee at the store, testified that the initials appearing on the check were hers, though she could not specifically recall the above-mentioned transaction. According to her, whenever a check was presented to her for payment at the store, she was instructed by the store manager to initial it and then insert it into a “Regiscope” machine, which is designed to simultaneously photograph, through two separate lenses, both the check and the person facing the machine. Upon discovery of the forgery of the endorsement on the check, the Regiscope film of the transaction was sent to the Regiscope distributor in Portland to be developed. The processed film showed both the check and Ralph Tatum, who lived in the same rooming house as Tousin, with the food store in the background. Both the negative and the print therefrom were admitted in evidence, above Tatum’s objection.
Issue:Were the authenticated Regiscope negative and print properly admitted as evidence?
Held: Yes. Pentecost testified that the background shown in the photograph was that of the food store and that “regiscoping” each individual who cashed a check at the store was its standard procedure everytime a check was presented for encashment. Another witness, Phillip Dale, meanwhile, testified as to the Regiscope process. These testimonies amounted to a sufficient authentication to warrant the admission of the negative and the print into evidence.
Tatum was not precluded from attempting to prove that the individual portrayed in the Regiscope print was not him, that it was inaccurate in any respect and that he was somewhere else at the time the photograph was taken. However, these arguments go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of said negative and print. The Regiscope films, coupled with the other evidence presented, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of first degree forgery.
Doctrine: The admission and use of demonstrative evidence, including photographs, have for many years been encouraged. Such admission or rejection of photographs as evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Such discretion extends to the sufficiency of identification. As to the required quantum of authentication of a photograph, some witness (not necessarily the photographer) may be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and that the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated. The photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury.
PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ATADERO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 135239-40, August 12, 2002
Facts: On January 21, 1990, a violent fight erupted between two groups of men at Barangay Vista Alegre, Bacolod City. The fight was between the group of Florencio Atadero, Rolando Atadero and Raul Hudit and the group of Edgardo Meniel, Ronelo Meniel and Rolando Solinap. During the brawl, Edgardo was killed while his brother, Ronelo, was injured. The Ataderos and Hudit were jointly charged with the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of several witnesses and the autopsy report on the body of Edgardo, as well as the medical certificate issued by Dr. Rodolfo Escalona, the Medico-Legal Officer, showing the injuries sustained by Ronelo as a result of the incident. Said testimonies tended to show that the attack was initiated by the Ataderos and Hudit.
Issue: Did the trial court err in giving more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than those of the defense witnesses who were allegedly shown to be disinterested and unbiased?
Held: No. Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself. Evidence is credible when it is such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The only test of the truth of human testimony is its conformity to the court’s knowledge, observation and experience.
In this case, the physical evidence repudiates the claim of the defense witnesses that the initial aggression came from the victims’ camp. The autopsy report on Edgardo’s body shows that he sustained a total of 9 wounds. Ronelo, meanwhile, sustained hack wounds on his left thigh and the fingers on his left hand. In contrast, both accused did not suffer any injuries, except for the minor cut on Florencio’s eyebrow, caused by a stone hurled at him by Edgardo. This is a clear indication of who the real aggressors are. Otherwise, the Ataderos should have borne more serious injuries. Moreover, the multiple hack wounds and incised wounds suffered by both victims are telling signs of the aggressor’s resolve to kill them. It is an oft-repeated rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused on the victim are constantly and unremittingly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense.
Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. In this case, the physical evidence, consistent with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, establish beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused.
Doctrine: Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself.
Best Evidence Rule
AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-21438, September 28, 1966
Facts: Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to Rafael Carrascoso, one of 48 Filipino pilgrims bound for Lourdes, a first class round trip airplane ticket for the March 30, 1958, flight from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, Carrascoso travelled in first class. However, at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him out of his seat in favor of a “white man,” who, the Manager alleged, had a “better right” to the seat. Carrascoso refused, telling the Manager that his seat would be taken “over [his] dead body.” A commotion ensued and “many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class.” They pacified Carrascoso and prevailed upon him to give up his seat, which Carrascoso reluctantly did.
Issue: Do the tickets prove that Carrascoso had confirmed reservations for, and a right to, first class seats on the flight from Saigon to Beirut?
Held: Yes. As the trial court and found, the first-class tickets were marked “O.K.”, which, as Air France’s own witness, Rafael Altonaga, admitted, means that the space in the plane is confirmed. Air France received the corresponding amount as payment of first-class tickets. Testimonial evidence that the ticket was subject to confirmation in Hongkong cannot prevail over written evidence, which belie said testimonies and clearly show that Carrascoso was issued, and paid for, a first class ticket without any reservation whatever.
If, as Air France underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat, notwithstanding that seat availability in specific flights is therein confirmed, then an air passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline. It will be easy for an airline, aided by its employees, to strike out the very stipulations in the ticket, and say that there was a verbal agreement to the contrary. The Court has long learned that, as a rule, a written document speaks a uniform language, and that spoken word could be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relations between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable. In this case, the lower courts refused to believe the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket.
Doctrine: As a rule, a written document speaks a uniform language. Spoken word can be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relations between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable. Testimonial evidence cannot prevail over written evidence.
PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-14257, July 31, 1959
Facts: Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and her co-accused were charged with the crime of falsification of public documents, in their capacities as public officials and employees, for having made it appear that certain relief supplies and/or merchandise were purchased by Gonzales for distribution to calamity indigents, in such quantities and at such prices, and from such business establishments or persons as written in said public documents. The truth was, no such distributions of such relief and supplies as valued and as supposedly purchased had ever been made.
The prosecution presented as evidence a booklet of receipts from the Metro Drug Corporation in Magallanes, Cebu City. Said booklet contained triplicate copies, the original invoices of which were sent to the company’s Manila office, the dupicates given to customers, and the triplicates left attached to the booklet. One of the Metro Drug’s salesmen who issued a receipt further explained that, in preparing receipts for sales, two carbon copies were used between the three sheets, so that the duplicates and the triplicates were filed out of the use of the carbons in the course of the preparation and signing of the originals.
The trial court judge, Hon. Bienvenido Tan, interrupted the proceeding, holding that the triplicates were not admissible unless it was proven that the originals were lost and cannot be produced. Another witness was presented, and he alleged that the former practice of keeping the original white copies no longer prevails as the originals are given to the customers, while only the duplicates are submitted to the Manila office.
Issue: Are the triplicates of the receipts admissible as evidence?
Held: Yes. Under the law on evidence, the best evidence rule is that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. The admissibility of duplicates or triplicates under this rule has long been settled. “When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produced 2 facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signatures being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the nonproduction of the others.”