Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Fullero V People

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    - Petitioner was charged with falsifying a public document by misrepresenting that he passed the civil engineering board exam on his personal data sheet. - A subordinate testified that she was familiar with petitioner's signature from witnessing him sign her daily time records and that the signature on the data sheet matched. - Petitioner argued that an expert witness should examine the signatures and determine if they matched. - The Court ruled that using handwriting experts is not mandatory and non-expert witnesses familiar with the signature can testify to authenticity. Lower courts can determine authenticity on their own without an expert.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fullero V People

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    58 views2 pages
    - Petitioner was charged with falsifying a public document by misrepresenting that he passed the civil engineering board exam on his personal data sheet. - A subordinate testified that she was familiar with petitioner's signature from witnessing him sign her daily time records and that the signature on the data sheet matched. - Petitioner argued that an expert witness should examine the signatures and determine if they matched. - The Court ruled that using handwriting experts is not mandatory and non-expert witnesses familiar with the signature can testify to authenticity. Lower courts can determine authenticity on their own without an expert.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Fullero v people

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioner was charged with falsifying a public document by misrepresenting that he passed the civil engineering board exam on his personal data sheet. - A subordinate testified that she was familiar with petitioner's signature from witnessing him sign her daily time records and that the signature on the data sheet matched. - Petitioner argued that an expert witness should examine the signatures and determine if they matched. - The Court ruled that using handwriting experts is not mandatory and non-expert witnesses familiar with the signature can testify to authenticity. Lower courts can determine authenticity on their own without an expert.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    58 views2 pages

    Fullero V People

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    - Petitioner was charged with falsifying a public document by misrepresenting that he passed the civil engineering board exam on his personal data sheet. - A subordinate testified that she was familiar with petitioner's signature from witnessing him sign her daily time records and that the signature on the data sheet matched. - Petitioner argued that an expert witness should examine the signatures and determine if they matched. - The Court ruled that using handwriting experts is not mandatory and non-expert witnesses familiar with the signature can testify to authenticity. Lower courts can determine authenticity on their own without an expert.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Fullero v. People, G.R. No.

    170583, September 12, 2007


    Facts:  Petitioner was charged with falsification of public document in connection with
    the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) he submitted to the Bureau of Telecommunication
    wherein he made it appear therein that he passed the Civil Engineering Board
    Examinations given by the PRC.
    Before trial, Florenda B. Magistrado (Magistrado) testified that, being a
    subordinate of petitioner, she is very familiar with petitioner’s signature and actually
    witnessed petitioner affixing his signature on her daily time records (DTR) for
    September 1987 to May 1988. They also offer the DTR of Magistrado to compare with
    the signature of petitioner in the said DTR and to that of the subject PDS.
    On his part, petitioner contend that the stroke of the signature appearing in the
    PDS differs from the stroke of his genuine signature. He also questioned the DTR of
    Magistrado as evidence to prove that it was indeed his signature which appeared on the
    PDS. He contends that said DTR are devoid of factual basis as  "with the use of naked
    eye," they are not the same as his signature in the PDS. Instead, petitioner insisted that
    Legazpi City RTC should have submitted these documents to a handwriting expert for
    examination and merely rely on the testimony of Magistrado.

    Issue: Whether or not the use of handwriting experts is necessary in order to prove the
    authenticity of petitioner’s signature?

    Held: No, they are necessary. The Court ruled that resort to handwriting experts is not
    mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in
    examining or comparing handwritings or signatures. This is so since under Section 22,
    Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved
    by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, because he has
    seen the person write; or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
    has acted or has been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
    such person. Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper basis is
    given, may be received in evidence regarding the handwriting or signature of a person
    with which he has sufficient familiarity.

    The Legazpi City RTC was, therefore, not obliged to put a handwriting expert on the
    witness stand and direct the latter to examine petitioner’s signatures in the foregoing
    exhibits before ruling on their admissibility. It can, as it did, rely on the testimonies of the
    prosecution witnesses who are familiar with petitioner’s handwriting/signature in
    determining the admissibility of the aforesaid exhibits. It can, by itself, also compare
    petitioner’s signature in the PDS with the petitioner’s signatures in the subject exhibits
    with or without the aid of an expert witness and thereafter rule on the admissibility of
    such exhibits based on its own observation. In short, it can exercise independent
    judgment as regards the admissibility of said exhibits.

    You might also like