Cases (Reference to Memorandum) Flashcards
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) Descartin were accused of robbery with homicide. The Regional Trial Court did not give credence to the defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused of murder. The instant appeal was interposed by the three convicted appellants. Appellants attack the credibility of the prosecution’s lone eyewitness. It is asserted that the testimony of Francisca Espina should not be given worth since, while testifying, she would at times be seen reading some notes written on her left palm.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony of a witness, who during her testimony was seen looking at some notes written on her palm, should not be given credence
It should be given credence. The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states: 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 he 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 a 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. (Emphasis supplied.) Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the exercise of that discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has explained that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like details.
Petitioner entered into two contracts with private respondent Socor Construction Corporation. Due to Petitioner’s refusal to pay the amount billed by the Respondent, the latter brought a suit to recover from the former the sum of P299,717.75, plus interest at the rate of 3% a month. To prove the unpaid bills of the petitioner, private respondent presented its Book of Collectible Accounts and their bookkeeper, Dolores Aday to testify on the entries of the said book. During the trial, Aday admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She said she made the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the bills. The deliveries of the materials stated in the bills were supervised by “an engineer for such functions. The trial court, giving due weight to the plaintiff’s Book of Collectible Accounts, as well as Aday’s testimony, ruled in favor of respondent. On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner contends that Aday’s testimony is considered a hearsay for lack of personal knowledge of the entries made as the information entered was merely provided to her by the engineers of the respondent. It is nonetheless argued by private respondent that although the entries cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner contends that evidence which is inadmissible for the purpose for which it was offered cannot be admitted for another purpose.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not testimony of a witness as to entries made by her based on bills provided to her is inadmissible on the ground of hearsay evidence rule.
(2) Whether or not the testimony of a witness as to entries made by her based on information provided to her may be admissible as memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness
(1)”The answer is in the affirmative. When the witness had no personal knowledge of the facts entered by him, and the person who gave him the information is individually known and may testify as to the facts stated in the entry which is not part of a system of entries where scores of employees have intervened, such entry is not admissible without the testimony of the informer.
(2)”The answer is in the negative. Assuming that the book of collectible accounts presented by the respondent would qualify as a memorandum, the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence
