Cases (Opinion Rule) Flashcards
Herein accused was charged and convicted of murder by the trial court. On appeal, appellants argue that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence against them is weak, ambiguous, and inconclusive. Specifically, appellants contend that the testimony of P/Inspector Lemuel Caser, the prosecution’s ballistics expert, clearly shows that: (1) He is ignorant about such ballistics instruments such as the micrometer, goniometer, and pressure barrel. (2) He is not conversant with “the required references concerning ballistics,” particularly books on the subject by foreign authorities. (3) He could not “scientifically determine the caliber of a bullet.” Since P/Inspector Caser lacked adequate training and expertise in ballistics, they claim that his opinion that the test bullets and cartridges matched the slugs and cartridges recovered from the scene of the crime was not reliable. Appellants also assail Caser’s failure to take the necessary photographs to support his findings.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony of an expert witness which was given credence of the trial court may be assailed on appeal on the ground of incompetence.
An expert witness is “one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion.” There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present:
(1) training and education;
(2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and
(3) presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.
The question of whether a witness is properly qualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the discretion of the trial court. In the instant case, P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously testified as an expert witness in at least twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all over the country. An expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and cartridges to support his findings. Examination under a comparison microscope showing that the test bullet and the evidence bullet both came from the same gun is sufficient. Moreover, the ballistician conclusively found similar characteristic markings in the evidence, test cartridges and slugs
During his lifetime, Cesar Morelos sold and conveyed a parcel of land in favor of his niece, petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista, as evidenced by a “Deed of Absolute Sale”. Respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos, instituted a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title with damages. At the trial, Respondent presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that the signature of Cesar Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on his Residence Certificate were not his. Petitioners countered that the Deed of Absolute Sale was valid. On the other hand, petitioner presented Carmelita Marcelino who testified that she saw Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista sign the Deed in question. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the CA relying on the testimony of the expert witness reversed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE: W/N the testimonies of expert witnesses are conclusive to be a strong basis to nullify a duly executed and notarized deed of absolute sale as against the testimony of one who witness the signing of the deed.
No. It is well-settled that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract. 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 on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert.
In the case at bar, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. Carmelita Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness, authenticity and due execution thereof. Having been physically present to see the decedent Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista affix their signatures on the document, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of petitioners.
Herein accused was charged with murder. During the trial, the defense presented as one of its witness Scene of the Crime Operative (SOCO) PSI Lito D. Cabamongan to testify on the possible position of the gunman based on the wounds sustained by the victim. With Cabamongan’s testimony, the defense intends to assail the testimony of the eye-witnesses, Manalangsang and Cañada, as to the position of the gunman. Cabamongan’s testimony was offered as an ordinary witness. On appeal, the CA sustained the conviction of the accused and disregarded the testimony of soco Cabamongan. Aggrieved, petitioner now seeks to reverse his conviction, arguing that the CA erred in relying on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Manalangsang and Cañada and disregarding the inconsistencies between the statements of Manalangsang and the findings of the medico-legal and SOCO PSI Cabamongan as to the position of the gunman.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony of an expert presented as an ordinary witness may be admitted as evidence and be considered against testimony of eye- witnesses.
No. Expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise, and (b) the witness has been qualified as an expert. In this case, counsel for the petitioner failed to make the necessary qualification upon presenting Cabamongan during trial.
Herein accused was charged with two (2) counts of rape. Complainant Nympha Lozada, who was 25 years old at the time of the incidents in question, is considered to be retarded and finished up to the sixth grade only. During the trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, complainant Nympha Lozada y de Lara, complainant’s mother Virginia de Lara Lozada, and the attending medico-legal officer at Camp Crame, Dr. Rosalina O. Cosidon. Accused was convicted by the trial court. On appeal, Accused-appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of rape since the victim’s mental age was not proven. He argues that an essential element for the prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation of the complainant’s mental age to determine if her mental age is under twelve. He further claims that only in cases where the retardation is apparent due to the presence of physical deformities symptomatic of mental retardation can the mental evaluation be waived. In this case, only the mother of the complainant testified as to the latter’s mental age and fitness.
ISSUE: Whether or not an ordinary witness’ testimony on the mental fitness of the complainant who is a mental retardate may be admissible in evidence.
Yes. Rule 130, Section 53 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in evidence regarding —
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; (b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness’ own knowledge and observation, he having first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion. In the case at bar, Virginia Lozada testified on the mental condition of her daughter.
