100%(2)100% нашли этот документ полезным (2 голоса)
2K просмотров2 страницы
This case involved Jose Lava and others who were charged with rebellion, murder, arson, and robbery. Many of the original documentary evidence seized were destroyed in a fire. The court allowed the documents to be reconstituted as secondary evidence according to the relevant act. A handwriting expert analyzed specimens of Lava's handwriting and concluded the handwriting on various incriminating documents matched Lava's. The court upheld the admission of the reconstituted documents as evidence and found the handwriting expert's conclusion sufficient to show the handwriting was Lava's.
This case involved Jose Lava and others who were charged with rebellion, murder, arson, and robbery. Many of the original documentary evidence seized were destroyed in a fire. The court allowed the documents to be reconstituted as secondary evidence according to the relevant act. A handwriting expert analyzed specimens of Lava's handwriting and concluded the handwriting on various incriminating documents matched Lava's. The court upheld the admission of the reconstituted documents as evidence and found the handwriting expert's conclusion sufficient to show the handwriting was Lava's.
This case involved Jose Lava and others who were charged with rebellion, murder, arson, and robbery. Many of the original documentary evidence seized were destroyed in a fire. The court allowed the documents to be reconstituted as secondary evidence according to the relevant act. A handwriting expert analyzed specimens of Lava's handwriting and concluded the handwriting on various incriminating documents matched Lava's. The court upheld the admission of the reconstituted documents as evidence and found the handwriting expert's conclusion sufficient to show the handwriting was Lava's.
FACTS: Lava et al were charged with the commission of the crime of rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. Seized documentary and other articles were placed in the custody of the Philippine Constabulary because they had to be presented as evidence in the trial of rebellion cases pending in other courts. Most of the originals of the documentary evidence were burned during the fire that gutted the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary on September 10, 1958. The Solicitor General filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned exhibits. The petition for reconstitution was given by the Court. The appellants assail the reconstitution of the exhibits that were destroyed, and claim that the reconstituted exhibits should not be considered. In. GR. No. L-4974, in the course of the trial in the RTC, the evidence relied upon were only documents that were seized during raids on different places were Lava had been. Some of these documents were Lava's handwriting, or were signed by him using his alias names. These were clearly established by the testimony of a handwriting expert that was presented by the prosecution. The conclusion of the handwriting expert was based on the specimens of Lava's handwriting which were used as standards in comparing with the handwriting and/or signature (in alias) of the appellant that appear in the documents that were presented as evidence against him. Some documents were presented for comparison on Lavas signature are: 1. An application for employment signed by Jose Lava. The signature thereon was testified to by witness Eduardo Romualdez (now Secretary of Finance) as looking "like the signature of Jose Lava." Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the handwriting of Jose Lava, having received reports, parts of which were in the handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while Jose Lava, was a bank examiner; and 2. A cardboard containing a list of books requested by Jose Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid Prison. Buenaventura Villanueva, to whom the list was given, testified that he saw Lava writing the list on the cardboard. Lavas counsel contended that no genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting was presented as standard for comparison. ISSUE: 1. Would reconstituted documents be admitted as evidence?
2. Would the conclusion of the handwriting expert that it was Lavas
handwriting suffices? HELD: 1. Yes. The reconstitution was made in accordance with the provisions of Act 3110, which provides for the procedure in the reconstitution of court records. Section 59 of said act provides that destroyed documentary evidence shall be reconstituted by means of secondary evidence which may be presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court or any other officer commissioned by the Court. Section 14 of the act provides that the destroyed or lost documentary evidence shall be replaced by secondary evidence. A photostatic copy of an original document is admissible as a secondary evidence of the contents of the originals and they constitute evidence of a satisfactory nature. 2. Yes. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as evidence against Lava, especially the handwritten names of Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg.