TITLE: SISON vs PEOPLE

TOPIC: Object (Real) Evidence

FACTS:
A small group of Marcos loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden of Luneta. There,
they saw Z, a popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, jogging
around the fountain who angrily ordered the loyalists “Gulpihin ninyo and mga Cory
hecklers!". As a result, X, who was only attacked because he was wearing a yellow
shirt, died due to the mauling given to him by the loyalists. Several informations were
filed in court against the accused identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the
murder of X. During trial the prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including two
eyewitnesses, and the police officers who were at the Luneta at the time of the
incident. In support of their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented
documentary evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various
photographs taken by the media during the mauling.

Accused contended that the photographs were not properly identified, hence, the
court was wrong in admitting the same since the person who took the same was not
presented to identify them.

QUESTION:
Is the contention of the accused correct?

RULING:
NO.
As a rule, Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which
they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct
representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its
accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however,
is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of
the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to
its accuracy.
In this case, the fact that the photographers were not presented to identify the photo’s
given in evidence, will not affect the admissibility of such evidence since their
correctness may be proved by the testimony of other competent witnesses, subject to
the courts impeachment.
Therefore, the contention of the accused is mistaken.