III.

Real and Demonstrative Evidence A. Rule 130, Sections 1 & 2. B. Cases 1. 2. 3. 4.

People vs. Bardaje Sison vs. People Adamczuk vs. Holloway State vs. Tatum

III.

REAL AND DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE A. RULE 130; SEC. 1; SEC. 2 Rule 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY B. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

SECTION 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

C.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

SECTION 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

Cases:

People vs. Bardaje 99 SCRA 388 (1980) Real and Demonstrative Evidence

FACTS: The accused, Adelino Bardaje was convicted of Forcible Abduction with Rape and sentenced to death. Thus, the case is brought to the SC for automatic review. The complainant Marcelina Cuizon claimed that she was dragged by the accused together with five other persons from the house of a certain Fernandez by means of force and intimidation and at nighttime. Also, she narrated that Bardaje slapped her rendering her unconscious and when she regained consciousness in a hut, Bardaje was holding her hands and removing her panties. Despite her struggle, Bardaje succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her while his companions kept guard. When Cuizon underwent physical examination, the doctor found that there were old healed lacerations which may have been caused by possible sexual intercourse or other factors, and if it were intercourse, it could have occurred two weeks or one month ago. During trial, Adelino admitted having had carnal knowledge of the victim but denied having raped her. He claims that they eloped as previously planned.

ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of Bardaje was established beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING: No. Cuizons charge that she was forcibly abducted and afterwards raped was highly dubious and inherently improbable. According to the medical findings, no evidence of external injuries was found around the vulva or any part of the body. Considering that complainant was allegedly dragged, slapped into unconsciousness, wrestled with and criminally abused. Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witness put together. The medical findings of old healed lacerations in the hymen which according to the testimony of the examining physician would have occurred two weeks or even one month before, if said lacerations had been caused by sexual intercourse. This expert opinion bolsters the defense that Bardaje and Cuizon had previous amorous relations at the same time that it casts serious doubts on the charge of intercourse by force and intimidation. It is impossible that complainant could have been raped by the accused inside a small room occupied by a woman and two children and in a small hut where the owner, his wife and seven children are all present. It is improbable that she could have been sexually abused with so many within hearing and seeing distance.

Under the abovementioned circumstances, the Five Others who stood guard outside while Adelino allegedly took advantage of her. Would have taken turns in abusing her if rape indeed happen. The fact that they did not do so, implies a special relationship between Marcelino and Adelino. This is a case where a young girl could not admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse. She was left with no choice but to charge Bardaje with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community.

By: Raymond Joseph Ibon

Sison vs. People 250 SCRA 58 (1995) Real and Demonstrative Evidence

FACTS: Several informations were filed in court against eleven persons (Sison et al) identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a supporter of Cory Aquino, which happened on the occasion of a rally held by the Marcos loyalists at Luneta. After being asked to disperse the crowd for not having with them the required permit, the loyalists started hurling stones toward the police officers at the scene, and directed their ire against Cory supporters. Salcedo, wearing a yellow shirt was ganged upon by several men, and he was beaten and mauled. When he tried to get away from his attackers by running away, the attackers ran after him and when they caught up with him, he was further beaten until he was knocked unconscious. He was dead upon arriving at the PGH. All these were witnessed by Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor. Banculo and Sumilang (who was also a witness who tried to help Salcedo but to no avail) were principal witnesses for the prosecution. The incident was also witnessed by photographers, whose pictures ere published in major newspapers in Metro Manila and were presented as evidence as to the participation of the accused in the mauling. Several of the accused were photographed with Salcedo. Despite their defense of alibis, the trial court convicted several of the accused of homicide and acquitted the others. Upon appeal to the CA, the charge was qualified to murder. In the SC, the accused question the admissibility of the photographs taken of the victims as he was being mauled at the Luneta, for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same.

ISSUE: Whether or not the photographs should be admitted as evidence against the accused?

RULING: Yes. The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances 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 only the 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 witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. Even if the person who took the photographs was not presented to identify them, the use of these photos 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 photos are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon

Adamczuk vs. Holloway 13 A.2d.2 (1940) Real and Demonstrative Evidence

FACTS: Jack Adamczuk brought an action in trespass against defendants car owner Morris Cohon and driven by defendant Elmer Holloway for an incident arising out of the collision between the cars they were driving. The accident took place at 9:30 p.m. at the junction were Highway Route 6 meet with Bridgeville Road. Adamczuk was driving southwardly on the Bridgeville Road and Holloway was driving eastwardly on Route 6. The jury ruled in favor of Holloway. Adamczuks motion for a new trial was refused and these appeals followed.

It was found that on trial, Jack Adamczuk was on the stand and he was shown Exhibit no. 3, a picture and when queried as to what it depicted, he replied, the conditions represented by that picture truly represents the conditions of the crossing at the time of this accident except for the fact of daylight or dark. Then the exhibit was offered in evidence. On cross, it was disclosed that the witness did not know who took the picture or when it was taken. He could not relate the circumstances at to how the picture was taken. The court then sustained the objection to the pictures introduction, wherein the court did not admit it. The none admission of this evidence is the main issue asserted by the plaintiff in this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Photograph (Exhibit no. 3) is admissible as evidence even if the taker is not presented to verify the picture?

RULING: The court affirmed the decision. 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 map or photograph must first, to be admissible, be made a part of some qualified persons testimony. Some one must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor; in other words, IT MUST BE VERIFIED. 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. There is also a rule giving the trial judge discretion to reject a picture, on the ground that the evidence is cumulative or that the photograph is unnecessary. This can be done the court in such situations that there are far better photographs of the place taken than the photo offered or the jury had personally visited the place photographed. The question of the sufficiency of the preliminary proofs to identify a photograph and show that it is a fair representation of the objects which it purports to portray is a question committed to the discretion of the trial judge. The court thus finds that the exclusion under the facts of this case amounted to reversible error because: a.) the jury had the benefit of other photos of the intersection b.) the testimony of Herbert Dillard

c.) Also, it would not support Adamczuks contention that he had his head turned at a 45 degree angle and, thus, being able to see for 200 feet only. This caused him not to see the car coming from the west. But Dillards testimony stated that at the intersection he had an unobstructed view to the west of 793 feet.

By: Raymond Joseph Ibon

State of Washington vs. Tatum 360 P.2d 754 (1961) Real and Demonstrative Evidence

FACTS: William Tousin received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. In February of 1960, Tousin did not receive his check which was normally mailed to him. It was discovered that Tousins check had been taken by Ralph Tatum who subsequently forged an endorsem ent on the check to his name and cashed the same at a food store. A criminal case was subsequently brought against Tatum for first degree forgery. During the trial, Caroline Pentecost, an employee of the store, testified that, although she could not recall the specific transaction involving Tatum, the initials appearing on the back of the check were hers. She explained that whenever a check was presented to her for payment at the store, she had been instructed by the manager to initial it and then to insert it into a regiscope machine. The machine was designed to simultaneously photograph both the check and the person facing the machine. The Regiscope film of the transaction was then sent to the Regiscope distributor to be developed. The processed film showed both the check and the person of Tatum with the food store in the background. The negative and the print were admitted in evidence and Tatum was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Tatum questions the films admission into evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Regiscope films were authenticated sufficiently to warrant their admission into evidence?

RULING: Yes. The quantum of authentication required by the courts before a photograph may be admissible in evidence was stated thus: that some witness, not necessarily the photographer, be able to give some indication as to when, where and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and 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. Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the background shown in the picture as that of the food store, and as already mentioned, she testified as to the stores standard procedure of regiscoping each individual who cashed a check at the store. Also, one Philip Dale testified at length concerning the Regiscope process. The testimony of these two witnesses taken together amounted to a sufficient authentication to warrant admission of the photograph into evidence. The authentication supplied by the testimony summarized above, of course, did not preclude appellant from attempting to prove that the individual portrayed was someone other than the appellant, that the photograph was inaccurate in or more respects, the appellant was somewhere else at the moment the photograph was taken, or any other such defense. But these arguments go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the exhibits in question. In our opinion, the Regiscope exhibits, coupled with the other evidence produced by the state, sufficed to establish a prima facie case of first degree of forgery.

By: Raymond Joseph Ibon