Gomez vs Gomez-Samson, GR No.

156284, Feb 6, 2007

Digested by: Shyril Ann Servila

Evidence; Concept of Authentication

QUESTION
P is the witness taken by X, Special Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Z, in his case vs Y. Accusing Y
for fraudulently prepared and /or caused to be prepared a Deed of Donation Intervivos; that in the said
document, Z donated three real properties. In relation to this, X also filed the same to Q. Q denied the
matter allegations and at the same time P stated that the Deeds of Donation were signed by Z in their
completed form in the presence of Notary Public P. X wants to impeach P as witness, is X correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.

Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court prohibits:

Party may not impeach his own witness. Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to
impeach his credibility.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having
misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may
be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his examination-in-chief.

In this case, X vouched the credibility of P as his witness in his first case. The theory is that a person who
produces a witness vouches for him as being worthy of credit, and that a direct attack upon the veracity
of the witness would enable the party to destroy the witness, if he spoke against him, and to make him a
good witness, if he spoke for him, with the means in his hands of destroying his credit, if he spoke
against him.

People v. Molo, GR No. L-44680, Jan 11, 1979

Digested by: Shyril Ann Servila

Evidence; Laying the Predicate

QUESTION
X was accused of Murder. He allegedly attacked and assaulted Y in Romblon with a bolo. Y and Z is
husband and wife. Z witnessed the murder. Is Z’s inconsistent statement will not proved X guilty?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.

Section 16, Rule 132 of Rules of Court

-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
The alleged inconsistent statement given to the police was neither offered as evidence nor shown to
witness in order to enable her to explain the discrepancies if any in accordance to Section 16, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court. The proper bast was, therefore, not laid to impeach Z's testimony on the basis of
alleged inconsistent statements which she allegedly made before the police. Moreover, the alleged
inconsistencies inconsequential. Inconsistencies on minor details or on matters that are not of material
consequence as to affect the guilt or the innocence of the accused do not detract from the credibility of
the witnesses. The discordance in their testimonies on collateral matters heightens their credibility and
shows that their testimonies were not coached or rehearsed. Far from being evidence of falsehood, they
could justifiably be regarded as a demonstration of good faith.

Figueras v. Serrano, GR No. 28208, Sep 3, 1928

Digested by: Shyril Ann Servila

Evidence; Reference to Memorandum

QUESTION
According to the complaint of Dr. X, the services for which compensation is here claimed consist in
medical attendance during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, on B as well as on her father C, for which
purpose the plaintiff, who at that time lived in Vigan, had to make many trips to the town of Cabugao,
27 kilometers distant from where said patients lived. C is now dead, and the complaint here is directed
against his estate, represented by the defendant administrator. It is also alleged therein that C promised
to pay for plaintiff's trip to the town of Cabugao at the rate of P4 per kilometer. Is the Exhibit Q and R
are admissible in evidence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.

WRITTEN MEMORANDA MADE AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH THEY RELATE
ARE SOMETIMES ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERSON BY
WHOM THEY WERE MADE. (22 C.J., 869.)

Exhibits Q and R are objected to by the defendant as not duly identified and as incompetent evidence. It
is true that the witnesses P and F testified that they recognized the writing in said notebooks as
plaintiff's, but there is no proof that the notes in these exhibits were written with the knowledge and
consent, or even in the presence, of C. Neither does it appear that such notes were made at the time of
the visits and professional services referred to therein, or that they were written about that time. And
the appearance of the writing in these books (Exhibit Q and R ) does not show that such notes were
made therein on different occasions and at different periods of time, considering the noticeable
uniformity of the handwriting and of the color of the ink used (in Exhibit Q), in almost all the entries,
notwithstanding the fact that these entries cover a period of over one year.

People v. Odencio, GR No. L-31961, Jan 9, 1979

Digested by: Shyril Ann Servila

Evidence; Reference to Memorandum

QUESTION
While X, a forty-year old farmer, was in the yard of his house located at Barrio Simsiman, Pigcawayan,
North Cotabato, handing a pot of rice to his wife, Y, who was near the stairs, he was felled down by a
volley of shots. Y rushed to the aid of her husband. When she looked in the direction where the
gunshots emanated, she saw Q holding a gun near a coconut tree around six brazas away. Then, she
heard another volley of shots. She saw R, also holding a gun near another coconut tree around ten
meters away in the yard of the house of her neighbor, Z. She noticed that T was also shot dead.
Policemen arrived at X's house. Y informed them that Q was the gunwielder. They brought X to a
medical clinic where he was interrogated by Patrolman C. X told C that his assailants were Q, R and R's
father, H. Due to the critical condition of X (nagaagonto), he was not able to sign his dying declaration
(Exh. B) as taken down by Patrolman C was brought to the hospital. He died on the following day. Were
the accused convicted solely on the basis of the wife’s uncorroborated testimony?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.

X's antemortem statement fortifies the testimony of his widow, an eyewitness. We have stressed that
two other witnesses saw the appellants leaving the scene of the crime.

Moreover, X's dying declaration was sufficiently proven. The rule is that a dying declaration may be oral
or written If oral, the witness, who heard it, may testify thereto without the necessity, of course, of
reproducing exactly the words of the decedent, if he is able to give the substance thereof. An unsigned
dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down. (See 5 Moran's
Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 315-316.)