Darlene Q.

Reyes
1Q

August 31, 2016

Legal Research and Writing

Legal Opinion on the film The Verdict

Outline of Provisions Applicable
I. Rule 128
a. Section 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
b. Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
Evidence is regarded as the ultimate fact or the fact that is to be established. In the case of the
film, the testimony by the rebuttal witness can be considered as a documentary evidence (the
photocopy of the admission form) and a testimonial (her recount of the events that transpired).
The admissibility of the evidence is the issue at hand.
II.

Rule 130
a. Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writing or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents.
b. Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
i. (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
ii. (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom
the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
iii. (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
iv. (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office. (2a)
Section 3 states the general rule when the original of a document is to be presented and the
four exceptions to the rule. Hence the best evidence rule is often referred to loosely as the the
Original Document rule. It is thus a rule of preference in that it excludes secondary evidence
once the original is available.

III. Rule 132

a. Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. A witness may be allowed to
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under
his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon
it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that
the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must
be received with caution. (10a)

There are two Methods of Revival under Section 16. These are useful methods to the opposing
counsel when conducting his cross-examination. First, the witness is presented the
memorandum or record with the expectation that it will pull a switch in the brain and enable the
witness to put aside the memorandum and testify on what he now recalls. Thus the evidence is
not the memorandum or writing but what the witness remembers as now testified. Second is
that the same procedure is followed but the witness is still unable to recollect the event but he
can assert that the facts therein narrated are true. The evidence therefore is the writing itself.
b. Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. The party producing a document
as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution,
in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made
with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If
he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)
c. Section 39. Striking out answer. Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record. On proper motion, the court may also order
the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
Whether or not the rebuttal witness testimony is admissible under Philippine Law
The rebuttal witness testimony is as follows: She was the nurse who filled in the
admission form of Deborah Ann. When she asked Deborah Ann when her last meal was, the
latter responded that she had a full meal one hour ago. This is what she wrote exactly on the
admission form. However, the attending doctor had come from five difficult deliveries prior to
Deborah Anns. The doctor failed to read the admission form. Therefore the doctor administered
an anesthetic that was not to be given to a person with a full stomach. This led to the choking
and vomiting, leading to the comatose. However, the doctor approached her and told her to alter
the form, to write the number nine instead of the number one. And she was threatened to lose
her job if she did not comply. But she made a photocopy of the original document, thinking that it
would be of use to her someday.
The defense attorney was able to quickly quip that an original copy of the document,
which was present and was used, should prevail over a photocopy, as forgery may have been
committed. The judge upheld the defense attorneys objection. The defense attorney also noted
that since her rebuttal testimony is based on this photocopy, her entire testimony should be
stricken from the record. The judge also upheld this.
The main issue at hand is whether or not a testimony, whose sole basis is a photocopy,
is admissible as evidence when an original copy is present. No, such testimony based on a
photocopy is not admissible as evidence when an original copy is present.
According to the provisions of Section 1 Rule 128, the rebuttal witness narration of the
events is considered as a testimonial while the photocopy of the admission form is documentary
evidence. It should be noted that since the testimonial of the witness is founded on the
photocopied admission form, if the documentary evidence is considered as inadmissible, then
the whole testimony would be stricken off the record. And so, the admissibility of the witness
recount of the stories is based on the truthfulness of the document.

According to rule 130 and the succeeding paragraphs, when dealing with documentary
evidence, the original copy must be produced and used in court. In the case of the film, the copy
that they designate as the original copy (which the witness allege is tampered) is present. Even
if it was tampered, it was the original copy as far as the records are concerned. There are
exceptions provided for this code, however, none of them pertained to allegedly fabricated
documents. This means that the photocopied version of the admission form cannot be used in
court. Hence, the rebuttal witnesss testimony is not admissible.
Another issue in this case is the fact that the discussion of the case is years away from the
actual commission of the crime. Section 16 of rule 132 states the instances where the witness
needs to refresh his memory in order to fully narrate the entirety of events. The only thing that
can prove that the rebuttal witness did in fact put a number 9 instead of a number 1 due to
coercion is the photocopy of the admission form. However, the record itself (the photocopy of
the admission form) is in question. Therefore, it was received with caution.
All in all, using the different provisions founding the Philippine Rules of Court, it can be
proved that no, the evidence by the rebuttal witness cannot be admissible and therefore be
stricken from the record to lessen confusion in construing the constitution.