RULE 130 SECTION 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR THE e.g.

of not regular, hence, not

BUSINESS RECORDS RULE admissibile: saloon keeper entered in
his books items for games and corn
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the and money; private diary of the
time of transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to employee about the circumstances on
testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received such; bookkeeping entries by the
as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional treasurer which do not come within his
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of authority
business or duty. (3) the entries were made in the Entries must be in the way of business
ordinary course of business or duty Defined to mean a course of
Reasons for Admissibility: transactions performed in one’s
habitual relations with others and as a
 They were made in the course of the business and part of the res natural part of one’s mode of obtaining
gestae livelihood
 Necessity: they are the best available evidence No reference as to the type of business
o When the entrant cannot be had, to testify in court, a or occupation done; but refers to the
necessity arises to take such other evidence from him as his act of “keeping records” as part of the
entries supply business operations
 Reliability and trustworthiness: the habit and system of making (4) the entries were made at or near Records are made contemporaneously
regular entries for business purposes produces usually a correct the time of the transaction to which it with the transactions and assures a
statement by the very trouble and difficulty of making false statement relates (before the controversy fairly accurate recollection of the
frequently, and by the usual absence of motive to do so. arose) matter as well as trustworthiness
o An erroneous entry, if made, is likely to be detected and
disputed by the associates or customers of the entrant Hence, entries made by a party after
o When the entry is by a clerk or agent, his responsibility to his the rights of an opposite party had
superior produces additional caution already accrued, after the dispute has
arisen, or an action begun, are
Requisites of Admissibility: inadmissible
(5) the entrant must be in a position to Why? “competency of the
Requisite Discussion know the facts stated therein entrant”
(1) the person who made the entry  entry is competent as an
must be dead or is unable to testify original independent evidence
(2) the entrant made the entries in his  made the entries in his only when the enterer had
professional capacity or duty professional capacity, regular personal knowledge of the
duty, or special duty enjoined facts entered, and when it is
by law, or other regular and his duty to inform himself of
ordinary duties the truth of the matters he
 there must have been a had undertaken to record
special duty devolving upon (6) there must be more than one entry Entries must be a part of a series of
the entrant to make the entries or reports, not casual or
entries that are sought to be isolated; not sporadic, and out of usual
introduced order in which the transactions o f the

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 1

 business are recorded; why? Regularity Trustworthiness
of the record may be evidenced by the
inspection and the fulfillment of this  the law reposes a particular confidence upon public officers that it
requirement presumes they will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity

Will the Best Evidence Rule and/or parol evidence find application in this case? Requisites for Admissibility
 Yes.
(1) the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially
Other Notes: enjoined to do so
 Rules on Electronic evidence also expressly exempt business records (2) it was made in the performance of his duties or by another person in
from the application of the hearsay rule the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law
(3) the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the
facts by him stated, acquired by him either personally or through official
What is the probative value? channels connected with the exercise of his public functions
 Creates a prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein
 Considered as the truth on face value unless otherwise proven to be Discussion of the Requisites
untrue
 But may still be questioned by putting in issue the veracity and the truth First requisite: the entry must have been made by the public officer or by a
of the facts private person by law specially enjoined to make such entry
o Or other points showing that the entry was wrong
Examples:
 tax records made by the tax officer
RULE 130 SECTION 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS  official cash-book kept by the disbursing officer of the coast guard and
transportation department
Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in  notarial register
the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person  records of birth, marriages and death kept by the municipal secretary
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence  priests or ministers administering marriages who are keeping the hitd
of the facts therein stated. copy of the marriage contract and license
 sheets of assessment revisions signed by the provincial assessor as to
Reason for Admissibility the ownership of the land

Necessity Second Requisite: the entry must have been made in the performance of duty
 Litigations are unlimited in which the testimony of public officials would  may be expressly stated by the law, the regulation, or statute
be daily needed  may be implied form the nature of the office of the officer
 If there is no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would
be found devoting the greater part attending as witness in court and Third Requisite: the entrant must have sufficient knowledge of the facts by
delivering their depositions him entered
 Their work will suffer The knowledge may be:

(1) personally known to the entrant; or

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 2

 (2) when entry is made by one in the performance of duty, of his facts
reported to him by another in the discharge of a duty devolving upon Decision of the SC: Nevertheless, the SC upheld the decision of the
such other by virtue of his employment, it is nevertheless admissible MCTC in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the
a. it is essential however that the report from which the entry is accused appellant.
made should have been communicated under the sanction of
duty of obligation, and not causally or voluntarily Issue related to our topic: was the MCTC correct in considering the medical
certificate issued by the government doctor who was never presented in court?
How are entries proved?
 Production of the books or records themselves, or by production of a Ruling: No. the medical certificate is admissible. But it has no probative
copy certified by the legal custodian thereof value.

1. The trial court erred in giving weight to the medical certificate issued by
Dr. De la Paz despite the failure of the latter to testify. The certificate
could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule.
1. People vs. Bernaldez – 294 S 317 2. However, since it involved an opinion of one who must first be
established as an expert witness, it could not be given weight or credit
Facts: unless the doctor who issued it be presented in court to show his
(1) the accused Bernalez was charged with the crime of rape allegedly qualifications.
committed against Maria Theresa Bernaldez, her niece, in Barangay
Sugcad, Municipliaty of Polanguio Province of Albay.
(2) During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the following: 2. People vs. Divina – 221 S 209
a. Maria Teresa, the victim, and her father Pedro
b. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Nancy Dela Paz, a Facts:
government doctor, who examined Maria Teresa. (1) the Accused appellants Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga were
i. The medical Certificate stated that: there were old charged with the crime of the murder of Concepcion Baillo and the
lacerations at 3:00 and 9 o’clock” and “newlyhealed crime of frustrated murder of Jaime Baillo.
lacerations at 11 o’clock” on the hymen of MARIA (2) During the trial of the case, the following were presented in court as
TERESA evidence for the prosecution:
c. However, the medical doctor was not presented in a. The lone testimony of Jaime Baillo, one of the victims, who
court. positively identified the assailant as the accused appellant
(3) On the other hand, the defense presented the accused to establish an b. Another evidence presented was the police blotter where the
alibi as well as a certain Delfin Paular, the overseer of the rice mill statements of a certain Fr. Badoy, whose truck was used to
where the accused was working. return to the place where the shooting incident happened were
(4) The Muniicipal Circuit Trial Court rendered a decision finding the accued indicated.
appellant guilty. The decision of the MCTC was based on several i. the said police blotter stated that the shooting
grounds, among them, and giving much weight to the medical incident happened at around 7:40 in the evening.
certificate issued by the medical doctor. (3) On the other hand, both the accused appellants tried to establish alibi.
a. In considering the medical certificate despite the failure of the (4) Both accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both
Dr. De La Paz to testify thereon, the trial court reasoned that crimes.
the document, being an act done by a public officer, was (5) Hence the present action by the accused appellants arguing among all
presumed to be done regularly, unless proved otherwise. others that the positive identification by Jaime Baillo was questionable
(5) Because of the penalty of the crime, the case was automatically because as stated in the police blotted, the shooting incident happened
reviewed by the SC. at around 7:40 in the evening and not 6:30 as claimed by the

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 3

 prosection. Hence, it was not possible for the victim to have seen the Issue: was the guilt of the accused appellant proven beyond
accused without the aid of a lighted torch (madilim daw, so di sya reasonable doubt?
naidentify hehe)
Ruling: No. the court noted a number of significant facts from which
Decision of the Supreme Court: the recorded evidence of the prosecution materially and substantially
 The accused Mecrito is found not guilty. debunked and derailed the theory of the government and gave
 Accused Divina, however, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. considerable merit to the defense.

In relation to our topic, what is the significance of the police blotter as

evidence presented by the prosecution: In relation to our topic, which became also controlling in this case, was
whether indeed the rape had taken place on the date alleged by the
 A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to complainant.
the police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police blotter,
are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not 1. as the prosecution have pointed out, Irene was brought to the hospital
conclusive. on the day that she was raped. However, the lacerations, as found by
the medical examination of the doctor, were already healing as stated
 It is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the crime, bythe medical certificate.
i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the a. The clinical case record of Irene Dulay's admission and
parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither present when the shooting confinement at the Provincial Hospital of La Union, marked
incident happened nor presented as a witness during the trial. The Exhibit "2", contain entries which totally and completely belie
information supplied is therefore hearsay and does not have the claim of the complainant that she was raped by the
any probative value. accused in the afternoon of April 22, 1973.
b. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 o'clock
p.m., April 22, 1973 (the same day she was admitted in the
hospital), then the lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10
3. People vs. Leones – 117 S 382 o'clock would not have been described and indicated to be
Healing in the clinical case record. It would be described as
Facts: "laceration fresh" or by similar words like "bloody or new
(1) Accused- appellant Joseph Leones was charged with the crime of rape lacerations." There is no instant formula, technique or process
of their 16 year- old saleslady employee, Irene Dulay. known to medical science or by human experience to hasten
(2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the following: the healing of a lacerated hymen within three (3) hours or so
a. Irene Dulay who alleges that she was drugged by the appellant after defloration.
accused when they were in resort in La Union c. it follows reasonably that the defloration occurred several days
i. That on the same day she was raped, she was before, which may have happened when Irene Dulay took a
brought to the hospital to be examined by the doctor weeklong vacation to her hometown in Pugo, La Union
b. Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Cayao of the Provincial 2. Application of the rule: The written entries in the clinical case
Hospital of La Union which stated that there were record, Exh. "2", showing the date of her admission in the
HEALING lacerations of the hymen at 2 o’clock position. hospital on April 22, 1973, her complaint of vaginal bleeding and the
(3) The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused appellant guilty diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen"
of rape beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that the evidence presented are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the said
by the prosecution also clear and convincing. entries having been made in official records by a public officer
(4) Hence, the present action by the accused appellant. of the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially
enjoined by law, which is that of a physician in a government

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 4

 hospital. (Rule 130, Sec. 38, Rules of Court). In the case at bar,
Dr. Antonino Estioco was the admitting physician but The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his external
unfortunately, he was not presented as a witness for the examination of the body of the victim establish the cause of death of the
government. deceased contrary to the contention of the appellant.

In this jurisdiction such death certificate and notes issued by said

municipal health officer in the regular performance of his duty are
4. People vs. Crisostomo – 160 S 47 prima facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim.

Facts:
1. the accused- appellant was charged with the crime of the murder of
Romeo Geronimo. Romeo was shot once on Christmas day by the
appellant Eugenio Crisostomo.
a. During the trial, aside from the accounts of other witnesses, 5. Feria vs. CA – 325 S 525
the admission of the accused’s shooting of the victim, as well
as the offer of plea of guilty of the same, the death
certificate and the notes of Dr. Santos, the medical doctor Facts:
who attended to the victim when he was brought to the
hospital and externally examined the body of the victim was (1) Petitioner Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been under detention since
presented to establish the fact of death as well as the cause of May 21, 1981, up to present by reason of his conviction of the crime of
the death. Robbery with Homicide, in Criminal Case No. 60677, by the Regional
b. That the said documents stated that the cause of death was a Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, for the jeepney holdup and killing of
gun shot wound wherein there were two wounds: an entry and United States Peace Corps Volunteer Margaret Viviene Carmona.
an exit wound (2) However, it was later on discovered that the files and records of the
2. The Trial court rendered a decision finding him guilty of the crime of petitioner in relation to his charge and his conviction of the robbery
murder. (information, commitment order or Mittimus and the copy of the
3. Hence the present action of Crisostomo. He avers that: judgment) were all missing. It was later on proven by the Clerk of the
a. That the death certificate of the victim (Exhibit A) to which he court of the RTC of Manila that the said records of the criminal case
offered no objection is admissible only to establish the fact of were all burned during the Manila City Hall fire on November 3, 1986.
death not the cause of the death of the victim. (3) Writ of Habeas Corpus: petitioner filed a Petition for the Issuance of
b. He further avers that the testimony of Dr. Juan Santos who a Writ of Habeas Corpus5 with the Supreme Court against the Jail
examined the body of the victim but did not perform an Warden of the Manila City Jail, the Presiding Judge of Branch 2,
autopsy shows that he did not qualify as an expert witness; Regional Trial Court of Manila, and the City Prosecutor of Manila,
and even if he were an expert witness there was no basis for praying for his discharge from confinement on the ground that his
him to render an opinion as to the cause of death of the victim continued detention without any valid judgment is illegal and violative of
his constitutional right to due process.
(4) The SC resolved to issue the Writ and ordered that the case be
Issue: was the trial court correct in convicting the accused appellant? raffled on a scheduled date.
(5) The RTC of Manila then rendered a decision dismissing the case for the
Ruling: Yes. Writ of Habeas Corpus stating that: the mere loss of the records of the
case does not invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authorize the
In relation to the arguments and our topic: What is the significance of the said release of the petitioner, and that the proper remedy would be
documents presented by the prosecution?

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 5

 reconstitution of the records of the case which should be filed with the Case No. 60678 and Robbery in Band in Criminal Case No.
court which rendered the decision. 60867. . . . In Criminal Case No. 60677 (Robbery with Homicide)
a. It ruled that there was sufficient evidence on record that the the accused admitted in open Court that a decision was read to him
petitioner was convicted of the crime. in open Court by a personnel of the respondent Court (RTC Branch
(6) The CA upheld the decision of the RTC. II) sentencing him to Life Imprisonment (Habang buhay) . . .”

Petitioner’s declarations as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence

Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that his constitutional rights against him under Section 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
are being violated for his continued detention without the valid copies of the
judgment convicting him.
B. Hearsay

Issue: was there sufficient evidence showing his conviction and thereby Public respondents likewise presented a certified true copy of People’s Journal
justifyinghis continued incarceration? dated January 18, 1985, page 2,20 issued by the National Library, containing a
short news article that petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery with
Ruling: Yes. Homicide and was sentenced to “life imprisonment.”

Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court, there is However, newspaper articles amount to “hearsay evidence, twice removed” and
sufficient evidence on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner are therefore not only inadmissible but without any probative value at all
which serves as the legal basis for his detention. Petitioner made judicial whether objected to or not, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the
admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged with and convicted of truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the news article is admissible only as
the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment evidence that such publication does exist with the tenor of the news therein
“habang buhay.” stated.

(1) The records contain a certified true copy of the Monthly Report dated
January 198519 of then Judge Rosalio A. De Leon, attesting to the fact
that petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide on
January 11, 1985.
a. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records
under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, which is prima facie evidence of facts therein stated.

Other bases that the court used to prove the existence of conviction:

A. Admissions:

“During the trial and on manifestation and arguments made by the accused, his
learned counsel and Solicitor Alexander G. Gesmundo who appeared for the
respondents, it appears clear and indubitable that:
(A) Petitioner had been charged with Robbery with Homicide in
Criminal Case No. 60677, Illegal Possession of Firearm in Criminal

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 6

RULE 130 SECTION 45. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE RULE 130 SECTION 46. LEARNED TREATISES

Section 45. Commercial Lists and the Like. Evidence of statements of Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the
register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness
prove the truth of any relevant matter as stated if that compilation is published expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
for use by person engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
upon by them therein. subject.

Reason for the Admissibility Reasons for Admissibility

Necessity Necessity
 The usual unavailability of the persons who make the final compilation  it is extremely inconvenient and costly to produce qualified expert
on the basis of personal knowledge make it tremendously inconvenient witness regarding the matter subject of the publication
Trustworthiness o an ordinary witness, is perhaps the larger proportion of the
 Authors of the said compilations have no motive to deceive, and they topics upon which he may questioned, has not a knowledge
further realize that unless their lists registers, and reports are prepared derived from personal observation. He virtually reproduced the
with care and accuracy, their work will have no commercial or conclusions of others which he accepts on authority of the
professional value eminent names responsible for them.
Trustworthiness
Take note of the requisites for exception to the hearsay rule be applied:  the writer publishes for his profession and he knows that this
1. they are made by person engaged in that occupation publications are subject to careful professional ciritiscm and is open
2. they are generally used and replied upon by them ultimately to certain refutation if not well founded
3. those lists and reports are published  his reputation is based on the correctness of his data and the validity of
his conclusions

Examples: Requisites of Admissibility

1. determination of the state of the market in market reports or (1) the Court takes Judicial Notice; OR
2. market reports or quotations as printed in newspaper trade circulars, (2) qualified by another expert: A witness expert in the subject, testifies
trade journal, and similar publications which are known, reliable and of that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
good repute recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject

Example: history books, and published findings of scientists; almanacs;

encyclopedia; tide tables, etc.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 7

  Any former judicial proceedings (not legislative or administrative
RULE 130 SECTION 47 – TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER proceedings)
PROCEEDING
B. Same Parties
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The  The rule is already satisfied if the subsequent proceedings is between
testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a persons who represent the parties to the proceeding by privity in law,
former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties blood, or estate
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had
the opportunity to cross-examine him. C. Relates to the Same Matter

D. the Adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine

Take note also of the similar rule in Criminal Procedure:
E. Unable to testify
Section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the ROC states:  Mere refusal to testify does not come within the purview of being
Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is unable to testify
deceased or outside the Philippines or unable to testify, or unavailable, given in  Such witnesses can be arrested and punished for contempt
another case, judicial or administrative, involving the same subject matter and
the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
How do you prove the former testimony?
 Official transcript of the stenographic notes
 May also be proven by the witnesses who heard the testimony and is
Reasons for the Admissibility able to recall and state it with satisfactory correctness
Necessity
 the witness could no longer testify and his former testimony should be 1. De Leon vs. People – 210 S 151
admitted to prevent miscarriage of justice
Trustworthiness The issue as to the admissibility of the sworn statements and testimonies of
 were already admitted in a previous case Reyes and Quinto deserves scant consideration at this stage of the case because
 were already subject to a cross examination before this Court had already put the issue to rest when it denied the petition for
certiorari earlier filed by herein petitioners questioning the decision of the Court
of First Instance to admit the transcripts in question. By the express provision of
Requisites for Admissibility section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the testimonies given by witnesses
(1) The testimony was rendered in a former case during the preliminary investigation of the case on trial should be admitted into
(2) There must be an identity of parties evidence when such testimony was taken by question and answer in the
(3) There must be an identity of the subject matter although different presence of defendant or his attorney, and there was an opportunity for the
causes of action defendant to cross examine the witness “who is dead or incapacitated to testify
(4) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness and or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines” (People v. Villaluz, 125
(5) The witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or unable to testify SCRA 116 [1983]).

Discussion of the Requisites

A. Former Case

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 8

RULE 130 SECTION 48 – OPINION RULE that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by the privileged
communication rule.
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as 7. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by
indicated in the following sections. the RTC and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for
private respondent as an expert witness and was asked hypothetical
questions related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the
Why the general rule? illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the
 This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were observed by results of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed.
him and it is for the court to draw conclusion from the facts testified to. 8. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony
of the Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition
for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude
Dra. Acampado. It stated that:
(1) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the
Lim – 214 S 273 testimony of Dra. Acampado
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the
Facts: realm of privileged communication because the information she disclosed
1. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her professional
2. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment capacity and neither where the information necessary to enable the physicial
of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly Lim. And neither does the
from schizophrenia “before, during, and after the celevration of the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken the character of the
marriage, and until the present” patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach.
3. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 9. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.
witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II
and in-charge of the Female Service of the National Center for Mental Health Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim?
a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Association and a Diplomate of the
Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was summoned as an expert Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness.
witness. However, she also happened to be the attending
psychiatrist of the petitioner Nelly Lim. Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other course of
4. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of action but to agree with the respondent Court’s observation that the petitioner
the petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra. failed to discharge that burden. In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented
Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as a witness in court. and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, she
5. During the hearing for the motion: did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination, interview
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the
testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever
relationship information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an is, as well, no showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions
expert witness and would not be testifying on any information propounded to her relating to the hypothetical problem were influenced by the
acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her professional information obtained from the petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion
capacity. excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which
6. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing between
motion and stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be
and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised excluded. The rule on this point is summarized as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it becomes apparent

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 9

"The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the vagina” and “the presence of about 1015 cc of blood”
statutory physician-patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by at the vaginal vault. Dr. Lañada recommended that
permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a strictly Evelyn be admitted for confinement in the hospital
hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental condition of a because the wound in her vagina, which was still
patient whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion is based strictly bleeding
upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and disregarding any personal iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital stated
professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient. But in order to that: the child suffered severe compound laceration
avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a which could have been caused by a normal and fully
case, the physician must base his opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in developed penis of a man in a state of erection that
the question, excluding from consideration his personal knowledge of the patient was forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the
acquired through the physician and patient relationship. If he cannot or does not insertion caused her vagina to hemorrhage which
exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of the patient’s thus required the transfusion of 255 cc of blood.
condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion." c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was tryoing
to establish the fact the bleeding was not caused by his penis,
but of his ring finger with a long nail accidentally penetrating
the vagina of the victim while he was playing with her and
(2) People vs. Galleno – 291 S 762 throwing/lifting her up and down.
(3) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the accused
appellant and convicted him of the crime as charged.
Facts: (4) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was automatically
(1) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory raised to the SC for automatic review.
Rape of the 5 year old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera. a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was
(2) During the trial, several witnesses were presented: that the doctors made no conclusions as to what really
a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of caused the lacerations in the vagina of the victim.
their family and neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the
on his lap facing him. When she was already sitting on his lap, prosecution, namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes
he inserted his penis in his vagina. Lañada, and Dr. Machael Toledo, which convinced the trial
i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She court that rape was committed against the offended party, is
needed medical attention. not impeccable considering that they found that there was no
b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were presence of spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to
able to examine the victim Evelyn were also presented. They what caused the laceration in the victim’s vagina; that Dr.
were the doctors to whom the parents of Evelyn brought her Lañada herself testified that Evelyn told her that it was the
to treat her bleeding. finger of accusedappellant which caused the laceration. In
i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health addition, accusedappellant banks on the victim’s testimony on
Physician of Maayon, Capiz stated that: Evelyn’s crossexamination, that it was the finger of accused appellant
vaginal laceration could have been caused by a blunt which caused the laceration; and that she even disclosed this
instrument inserted into the vagina, that it was to accusedappellant’s father, Raul Galleno.
possible that a human penis in full erection had been
forcibly inserted into her vagina, and that a human Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three doctors?
penis in full erection is considered a blunt instrument. Are they admissible? What is their evidentiary weight?
ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada of the Roxas General
Hospital stated that: that “there was a 3 cm. Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of guilt
lacerated wound at the left anterior onethird of the of the accused appellant.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 10

As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give
opinions. It is the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form
opinions upon the facts proved.

However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases,

and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either
because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the
nature of the subject matter under observation, or for other reasons, the
testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.

In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the
aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible
cause of the victim’s laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution
witnesses, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial court did
not rely solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert
testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgment
on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various
possible causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean that the trial
court’s inference is wrong.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 11