FORENSIC 1 - FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY Draft a reaction paper for each of the two case digests/summaries in the image. focusing on the photographic evidence that helped the case succeed. Please follow this format. and if you want to provide more details much better: (1) Introduction: Ensure that the case is fully introduced here. (2) Body: Explain why you chose these case digests and the details of the case digests. (3) And nally. for the CONCLUSION. give your thoughts/reactions about the case digest. especially your thoughts/learning about the importance of photographic evidence in court or in the process of seeking justice. ARMANDO JOSE y PAZ and MANILA CENTRAL BUS LINES (MCL), represented by its General Manager MR. DANILO T. DE DIOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL ABRAHAM, represented by his father FELIXBERTO ABRAHAM, JOSE MACARUBO and MERCEDES MACARUBO, respondents. G.R. Nos. 118441-42, SECOND DIVISION, January 18, 2000, MENDOZA, J. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.- FACTS: Petitioner Manila Central Bus Lines Corporation (MCL) is the operator-lessee of a public utility bus (hereafter referred to as Bus 203), owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corporation and is insured with the Government Service Insurance System. On February 22, 1985, at around six o'clock in the morning, Bus 203, then driven by petitioner Armando Jose, collided with a red Ford Escort driven by John Macarubo on MacArthur Highway, in 34 DEAN'S CIRCLE 2019 - UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Bus 203 was bound for Muntinlupa, Rizal, while the Ford Escort was headed towards Malanday, Valenzuela on the opposite lane. As a result of the collision, the left side of the Ford Escort's hood was severely damaged while its driver, John Macarubo, and its lone passenger, private respondent Rommel Abraham, were seriously injured. The driver and conductress of Bus 203 rushed Macarubo and Abraham to the nearby Fatima Hospital where Macarubo lapsed into a coma. Despite surgery, Macarubo failed to recover and died five days later. Abraham survived, but he became blind on the left eye which had to be removed. In addition, he sustained a fracture on the forehead and multiple lacerations on the face, which caused him to be hospitalized for a week. On March 26, 1985, Rommel Abraham, represented by his father, Felixberto, instituted Civil Case for damages against petitioners MCL and Armando Jose. On July 17, 1986, the spouses Jose and Mercedes Macarubo, parents of the deceased John Macarubo, filed their own suit for damages in the same trial court against MCL alone. On the other hand, MCL filed a third-party complaint against Juanita Macarubo, registered owner of the Ford Escort on the theory that John Macarubo was negligent and that he was the "authorized driver" of Juanita Macarubo. The latter, in turn, filed a counterclaim for damages against MCL for the damage to her car. The cases were consolidated and later tried jointly. ISSUE: Whether or not the photographs taken are admissible as evidence. RULING: YES, The photographs taken by the victim are admissible as evidence. It is well-settled that a question of fact is to be determined by the evidence offered to support the particular contention. In the proceedings below, petitioners relied mainly on photographs showing the position of the two vehicles after the collision. On the other hand, private respondents offered the testimony of Rommel Abraham to the effect that the collision took place because Bus 203 invaded their lane. The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather than on Rommel Abraham's testimony which was obviously biased and unsupported by any other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In People v. Vasquez, where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical evidence should prevail. In this case, the positions of the two vehicles, as shown in the photographs taken by MCL line inspector Jesus Custodio about an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision, disputes Abraham's self-serving testimony that the two vehicles collided because Bus 203 invaded the lane of the Ford Escort and clearly shows that the case is exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. Contrary to Abraham's testimony, the photographs show quite clearly that Bus 203 was in its proper lane and that it was the Ford Escort which usurped a portion of the opposite lane. The three photographs show the Ford Escort positioned diagonally on the highway, with its two front wheels occupying Bus 203's 35 DEAN'S CIRCLE 2019 - UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW lane. As shown by the photograph, the portion of MacArthur Highway where the collision took place is marked by a groove which serves as the center line separating the right from the left lanes. The photograph shows that the left side of Bus 203 is about a few feet from the center line and that the bus is positioned parallel thereto. This negates the claim that Bus 203 was overtaking another vehicle and, in so doing, encroached on the opposite lane occupied by the Ford Escort. Indeed, Bus 203 could not have been overtaking another vehicle when the collision happened. It was filled with passengers, and it was considerably heavier and larger than the Ford Escort. If it was overtaking another vehicle, it necessarily had to accelerate. The acceleration of its speed and its heavy load would have greatly increased its momentum so that the impact of the collision would have thrown the smaller and lighter Ford Escort to a considerable distance from the point of impact. Exhibit 1, however, shows that the Ford Escort's smashed hood was only about one or two meters from Bus 203's damaged left front. If there had been a great impact, such as would be the case if Bus 203 had been running at a high speed, the two vehicles should have ended up far from each other.ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. Nos. 108280-83 & 114931-33, SECOND DIVISION, November 16, 1995, PUNO, J.: The rule in this jurisdiction is that 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. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. FACTS: From August to October 1986, several informations were filed in court against eleven persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo. The cases were consolidated. All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato 31 DEAN'S CIRCLE 2019 - UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Banculo, 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 during the mauling. The prosecution established that on July 27, 1986, a rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Earlier, they applied for a permit to hold the rally but their application was denied by the authorities. Despite this setback, three thousand of them gathered at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta at 2:30 in the afternoon of the scheduled day. Led by Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega, both members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the loyalists started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and delivered speeches in between. Colonel Edgar Dula Torres, then Deputy Superintendent of the Western Police District, arrived and asked the leaders for their permit. No permit could be produced. Colonel Dula Torres thereupon gave them ten minutes to disperse. The loyalist leaders asked for thirty minutes but this was refused. The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear gas and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away but some of them fought back and threw stones at the police. Eventually, the crowd fled towards Maria Orosa Street and the situation later stabilized. At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, jogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them. Then she continued jogging around the fountain chanting. The loyalists replied. A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon!" A commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt. He then saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being chased by a group of persons. The man in the yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to extricate himself from the group but they again pounced on him and pummelled him with fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedo's aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a while and Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But accused Raul Billosos emerged from behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head. Accused Richard de los Santos also boxed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even as he was already fallen. Salcedo tried to stand but accused Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. Accused Nilo Pacadar punched Salcedo on his nape. Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim again. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly boxed him. Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not notice what he did. Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the blood from his face. He sat on some cement steps and then tried to flee towards Roxas boulevard to the sanctuary of the Rizal Monument but accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life. The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help of a traffic officer,Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." He sustained various contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures. The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people, both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became front-page news the following day, capturing national and international attention. This prompted President Aquino to order the Capital Regional Command and the Western Police District to investigate the incident. For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis. Accused Joselito Tamayo testified that he was not in any of the photographs presented by the prosecution because he was in his house in Quezon City. Gerry Neri claimed that he was at the Luneta Theater at the time of the incident. Romeo Sison, a commercial photographer, was allegedly at his office near the Luneta waiting for some pictures to be developed at that time. He claimed to be afflicted with hernia impairing his mobility; he cannot run normally nor do things forcefully. Richard de los Santos admits he was at the Luneta at the time of the mauling but denies hitting Salcedo. He said that he merely watched the mauling which explains why his face appeared in some of the photographs. Unlike the other accused, Nilo Pacadar admits that he is a Marcos loyalist and a member of the Ako'y Pilipino Movement and that he attended the rally on that fateful day. According to him, he saw Salcedo being mauled and like Richard de los Santos, merely viewed the incident. His face was in the pictures because he shouted to the maulers to stop hitting Salcedo. Joel Tan also testified that he tried to pacify the maulers because he pitied Salcedo. The maulers however ignored him. ISSUE: Whether or not the photographs taken by the victim are admissible as evidence for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same. RULING: YES. The photographs taken by the victim are admissible as evidence. Photographs taken of the victim as he was being mauled at the Luneta - starting from a grassy portion to the pavement at the Rizal Monument and along Roxas Boulevard, - as he was being chased by his assailants and as he sat pleading with his assailants. Photographs of Salcedo and the mauling published in local newspapers and magazines such as the Philippine Star, Mr. and Ms. Magazine, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and the Malaya. The rule in this jurisdiction is that 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. Photographs, 33 DEAN'S CIRCLE 2019 - UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of its evidence, appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. objected to their admissibility for lack of proper identification. However, when the accused presented their evidence, Atty. Winlove Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used such Exhibits to prove that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could not have participated in the mauling of the victim. The photographs were adopted by appellant Joselito Tamayo and accused Gerry Neri as part of the defense exhibits. And at this hearing, Atty. Dumayas represented all the other accused per understanding with their respective counsels, including Atty. Lazaro, who were absent. At subsequent hearings, the prosecution used the photographs to cross-examine all the accused who took the witness stand. No objection was made by counsel for any of the accused, not until Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing objection to their admissibility. The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to identify them. We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies reveal that only three of the appellants, namely, Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily seen in various belligerent poses lunging or hovering behind or over the victim. Appellant Romeo Sison appears only once and he, although afflicted with hernia is shown merely running after the victim. Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the pictures. The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate them. The photographs did not capture the entire sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof. While the pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were unequivocally identified by Sumilang and Banculo Appellants' denials and alibis cannot overcome their eyeball identification