Marlene C. Ramiscal, et al. vs. Juanito B. Almosa, et al.

[SEC-EB NO. 271. April 8, 1991.] MARLENE C. RAMISCAL AND LOURDES R. DE LA CRUZ , petitioners , vs . Hearing Officer JUANITO B. ALMOSA, JR., ROBERTO RAMISCAL, EMMANUEL RAMISCAL, SOSTENES RAMISCAL, DR. JULIAN MENDOZA, MARITA BANDENHOPP, RODELIO DE VILLA AND DOMINADOR VELASCO , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N Before the Commission is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Marlene C. Ramiscal and Lourdes dela Cruz to set aside the Order of public respondent Juanito Almosa, Jr., barring a witness for the petitioners, one by the name of Salvador M. Rivera, Jr., from identifying photographs taken of the premises of a corporate office. prcd The question submitted for resolution is whether or not respondent Almosa committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in refusing to allow the witness to testify on the ground that the witness, not being the one who took the photographs, is incompetent to identify the same. It appears that during the trial the said witness was asked to identify the photographs in question. Counsel for respondents objected alleging incompetency. Respondent Almosa deferred ruling on the objection until the parties had submitted memoranda of authorities to sustain their respective positions. Respondents submitted the following arguments: "PHOTOGRAPHS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED ONLY BY THE PERSON TAKING IT." ( SIC ) "A. Tan vs. Sun Insurance, G.R. No. 27874, December 12, 1927, 51 Phil. 212; City of Manila vs. Cabangis, G.R. No. L-3898, February 18, 1908, 10 Phil. 151. "Photographs, maps, diagrams, models and the like may be presented as evidence. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of original and it is thus clearly necessary that the draftsman, designer or photographers who produced it testify not only to its production, but also to the circumstances under which it was produced. Its exactness and accuracy must be duly proved." Respondent Almosa sustained the objection of the respondents by holding that: "While it may be true that American jurisprudence allows a witness to identify photographs and/or pictures, even if such witness is not the one who took such photographs and/or pictures, in this jurisdiction, such witness is incompetent to identify said pictures and/or photographs because identification of the said pictures and/or photographs must only be made by the photographer or the person taking the same. The rationale behind this ruling is to avoid distortion or falsification." llcd Thereafter, the respondent hearing officer cited in the questioned order: "In the case of Tan vs. Sun Insurance, G.R. No. 27874, December 12, 1927, 51 Phil. 212; City of Manila vs. Cabangis ( sic ), G.R. No. L-3898, February 18, 1908, 10 Phil. 151, the Supreme Court ruled: "Photographs, maps, diagrams, models and the like may be presented as evidence. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of original and it is thus clearly necessary that the-draftsman, designer or photographers who produced it testify not only to its production, but also to the circumstances under which it was produced . Its exactness and accuracy must be duly proved. (Emphasis Supplied)" Examining the two cases, we find that the ruling attributed to the Supreme Court does not exist. What the high tribunal said were the following: "It has been held that photographs may be introduced to show the appearance of any place which might be properly viewed by the jury, where such a view by the jury is impossible or impracticable (Omaha S. Ry. Co. vs. Beeson, 36 Nebraska 361; see also People vs. Buddensieck, 103 N. Y. 487), and since in all cases this court may be called upon to review the evidence taken in the court below, we think that in this jurisdiction photographs of any place which may properly be viewed by the trial court should be admitted in the record upon proper proof of their exactness and accuracy, as appropriate aids in applying the evidence as it appears of record. Satisfactory testimony was introduced as to the accuracy and exactness to these photographs and the conditions under which they were taken, and we are of the opinion that they were properly admitted in evidence." [ The City of Manila vs . Tomas Cabangis, G.R. No. L-3898, February 18, 1908, 10 Phil. 151 (1908)] "The facts as depicted by the photographs are a reasonably correct representation of the condition of the premises immediately after the fire, and constitute evidence of a satisfactory and conclusive nature." [ Tan It vs . Sun Insurance Office, G.R. No. 27874, December 12, 1927, 51 Phil. 212 (1921)]. Two things can be gathered from the Supreme Court decisions. One is that a photograph is admissible in evidence provided satisfactory evidence is introduced as to its accuracy and exactness. The other is that photographs may be identified by a person other than the person taking them. Clearly, private respondents misquoted the Supreme Court decision which unfortunately was adapted by the respondent hearing officer. While private respondents reason that they merely cited the opinion of former Justice Ruperto Martin found in his "Rules of Court of the Philippines with Notes and Commentaries", Vol. 5, Revised Edition, still, private respondents should have-stated this fact. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby granted and the Order of public respondent Juanito Almosa dated December 6, 1990 is hereby set aside. He is hereby directed to allow the witness, Atty. Salvador M. Rivera, Jr., to testify on the photographs in question. LexLib With costs against private respondents. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ROSARIO N. LOPEZ Chairman (SGD.) GONZALO T. SANTOS, JR. (SGD.) RODOLFO L. SAMARISTA Associate Commissioner Associate Commissioner (SGD.) ARMANDO Z. GONZALES (SGD.) MERLE O. MANUEL Associate Commissioner Associate Commissioner