SISON vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. Nos. 108280-83
November 16, 1995 PUNO, J.:
FACTS: 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 IBP, 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. Atty. Lozano turned towards
his group and said "Gulpihinninyoanglahatngmga Cory infiltrators." Atty. Nuega added "Sige,
sigegulpihinninyo!" 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 "Gulpihinninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then
she continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikinsi
Marcos, Pabalikinsi Marcos, Bugbuginangmganakadilaw!" The loyalists replied "Bugbugin!" A
few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted
"Kailanganggumanti, tayongayon!" 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 shouting "Iyan, habuliniyan. Cory iyan!" 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 RanulfoSumilang, 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
NiloPacadar punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan. Patayin!"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. 6 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 NiloPacadar pursued him, mauling
Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life exclaiming "Maawana kayo sa akin.
Tulunganninyoako." He cried: "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?" 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, brought
Salcedo to the Medical Center Manila but he was refused admission. So they took him to the
Philippine General Hospital where he died upon arrival. Salcedo died of "hemorrhage,
intracranial traumatic." He sustained various contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull
fractures as revealed in the post-mortem findings.
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. A reward of P10,000.00 was put up by Brigadier General Alfredo Lim, then Police
Chief, for persons who could give information leading to the arrest of the killers. Several
persons, including RanulfoSumilang and Renato Banculo, cooperated with the police, and on
the basis of their identification, several persons, including the accused, were apprehended and
investigated.For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the mauling of
the victim and offered their respective alibis.
The trial court rendered a decision finding Sison, Pacadar, Tan, de los Santos and
Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Annie Ferrer was
likewise convicted as an accomplice. The court, however, found that the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the other accused and thus acquitted them. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals,modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
HELD: Decision is affirmed
Appellants also contend that although the appellate court correctly disregarded Exhibits "D,"
"G," and "P," it erroneously gave evidentiary weight to Exhibits "O," "V," "V-1" to "V-48," "W,"
"W-1" to "W-13." Exhibit "O" is the Joint Affidavit of Pat. Flores and Pat.Bautista, the police
intelligence-operatives who witnessed the rally and subsequent dispersal operation. Pat. Flores
properly identified Exhibit "O" as his sworn statement and in fact gave testimony corroborating
the contents thereof. Besides, the Joint Affidavit merely reiterates what the other prosecution
witnesses testified to. Identification by Pat. Bautista is a surplusage. If appellants wanted to
impeach the said affidavit, they should have placed Pat. Flores on the witness stand.
Exhibits "V," "V-1" to "V-48" are 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. Exhibits "W", "W-1" to "W-13" are 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 admissibility of these photographs is
being questioned by appellants for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who
took the same.
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.
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.
WinloveDumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used Exhibits "V", "V-1"
to "V-48" 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.
Adamczuk v. Holloway
338 Pa. 263, 13 A.2d 2 (1940)
FACTS: Plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against defendants for personal injuries and
property damage arising out of a collision between a car owned and operated by plaintiff, Jack
J. Adamczuk, and a car owned by defendant, Morris Cohen, and driven by defendant, Elmer
Holloway. When plaintiff Adamczuk, was on the stand, he was shown "Exhibit No. 3" and he
identified the roads and buildings appearing in the picture and stated, in answer to his counsel,
that "the conditions represented by that picture truly represent the conditions of the crossing at
the time of this accident except for the fact of daylight or dark." Then the exhibit was offered in
evidence. On cross-examination it was disclosed that the witness did not know who took the
picture or when it was taken. He stated that when the picture was taken the location of the
camera was on route 6 but he did not know at what distance from the intersection. He had no
experience in photography. He said he did not know whether the photographer tilted the camera
up or down when the picture was taken, and he did not know whether the photographer
"endeavored to accentuate certain parts of the picture." The court then sustained the objection
to the picture's introduction. It was offered in evidence again when Herbert C. Dillard, Civil
Engineer and County Surveyor, was on the stand. He was asked on cross-examination by
defendant's counsel: "If you were taking a picture, and wanted to accentuate the curve of route
six to the west, you could accomplish that by taking the picture farther away from the
intersection, that is, farther to the east of the intersection, could you not?" He answered: "I think
you could, yes." This witness was asked if he took photographs and developed them. He
answered: "Very little."
At the close of plaintiff's case the picture was again offered in evidence and was objected to and
the objection sustained, and court saying: "There is some mystery about exhibit number three,
which is not clear to the court. There is no proof of who took it, or any identity as to the picture,
other than the physical view thereon; it isn't shown where the camera was standing, under what
conditions it was taken, and whether it was taken with a view to distorting it or not." The court
then commented on the fact that plaintiff had two days to procure the original taker of this
photograph and thus establish it in the legal way with the right of cross-examination to
defendants' counsel of the photographer."
The rule is well settled that a photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if
verified. It does not have to be verified by the taker. Its verification depends on the competency
of the verifying witness and as to that the trial judge must in the first instance decide, subject to
reversal for substantial error.
Wigmore on Evidence (2d ed.), Vol. 2, sec. 792, p.97, says:
The objection that a photograph may be so made as to misrepresent the object is genuinely
directed against its testimonial soundness; but it is of no validity. It is true that a photograph can
be deliberately so taken as to convey the most false impression of the object. But so also can
any witness lie in his words. A photograph can falsify just as much and no more than the human

being who takes it or verifies it. The fallacy of the objection occurs in assuming that the
photograph can come in testimonially without a competent person's oath to support it. If a
qualified observer is found to say, "This photograph represents the fact as I saw it," there is no
more reason to exclude it than if he had said, "The following words represent the fact as I saw
it," which is always in effect the tenor of a witness's oath. If no witness has thus attached his
credit to the photograph, then it should not come in at all, any more than an anonymous letter
should be received as testimony.
In other words, if a witness is familiar with the scene photographed and is competent to testify
that the photograph correctly represents it, it should, if relevant, be admitted....

TORRALBA vs. PEOPLE

G. R. No. 153699 August 22, 2005 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Torralba has a radio show Tug-Ani ang Lungsod (Tell the People). Torralba
sought Tagbilaran Maritime Services, Inc. (TMSI) to sponsor his radio program. This request
was approved by private complainant Atty. Hontanosas who was then the president of TMSI.
During the existence of said sponsorship agreement, the management of TMSI noticed that
petitioner Torralba was persistently attacking former BIR Deputy Director Tomas Toledo and his
brother Boy. Fearing that the Toledos would think that TMSI was behind the incessant criticisms
hurled at them, the management of TMSI decided to cease sponsoring Torralbas radio show,
Soon thereafter, petitioner took on the management of TMSI. Lim testified that petitioner
Torralba accused TMSI of not observing the minimum wage law.
Atty. Hontanosas went on-air in petitioners radio program to explain the side of TMSI.
The day after said incident, however, petitioner Torralba resumed his assault on TMSI and its
management. It was petitioners relentless badgering of TMSI which allegedly prompted
Segundo Lim to tape record petitioner Torralbas radio broadcasts. Lim presented this tape
recording to Atty. Hontanosas of Torralbas radio program aired on 18 January 1994 during
which petitioner Torralba allegedly criticized him and stated that he was a person who could not
be trusted; that in his radio show petitioner Torralba mentioned that "he was now [wary] to
interview any one because he had a sad experience with someone who betrayed him and this
someone was like his father who was a collaborator". Lim brought to Atty. Hontanosass office
a tape recording of petitioner Torralbas radio program of 11 April 1994 during which petitioner
Torralba averred that the Hontanosas were traitors to the land of their birth; that Judge Agapito
Hontanosas and Castor Hontanosas were collaborators during the Japanese occupation; and
that after he informed his siblings regarding this, they asked him to institute a libel case against
petitioner Torralba.
Three of the tape recordings were introduced in evidence by the prosecution. During his
testimony, Lim admitted that he did not know how to operate a tape recorder and that he asked
either his adopted daughter, Shirly Lim, or his housemaid to record petitioners radio program.
He maintained, however, that he was near the radio whenever the recording took place and had
actually heard petitioner Torralbas radio program while it was being taped. This prompted
petitioner Torralba to pose a continuing objection to the admission of the said tape recordings
for lack of proper authentication by the person who actually made the recordings. In the case of
the subject tape recordings, Lim admitted that they were recorded by Shirly Lim. The trial court

provisionally admitted the tape recordings subject to the presentation by the prosecution of
Shirly Lim for the proper authentication of said pieces of evidence. Despite Torralbas objection
to the formal offer of these pieces of evidence, the court a quo eventually admitted the three
tape recordings into evidence.
The defense presented, as its sole witness, petitioner Torralba himself. Petitioner
Torralba maintained that he was a member of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
and other civic organizations in Cebu. In the course of his profession as a radio broadcaster, he
allegedly received complaints regarding the services of TMSI particularly with respect to the
laborers low pay and exhorbitant rates being charged for the arrastre services. As he was in
favor of balanced programming, Torralba requested TMSI to send a representative to his radio
show in order to give the corporation an opportunity to address the issues leveled against it;
thus, the radio interview of private complainant Atty. Hontanosas on 17 December 1993.
When Torralba was cross-examined by Atty. Hontanosas, he denied having called
former CFI Judge Hontanosas a traitor during his radio broadcast. Petitioner Torralba admitted,
though, that during the appearance of Atty. Hontanosas in his radio program, he did ask the
latter if he was in any way related to the late CFI Judge Hontanosas. Petitioner Torralba averred
that he posed said question as mere backgrounder on his interviewee. Both the trial court and
appellate court convicted Torralba. Hence, this appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether the tape recordings are admissible in evidence as it was not duly authenticated
by Lims adopted daughter, Shirly Lim.
HELD: Petition is granted
It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a
proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our
jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in
evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: (1)
a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) a showing that the
operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of
the recording; (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) a
showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) identification of the speakers;
and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement. These requisites were laid down precisely to address the criticism of susceptibility
to tampering of tape recordings. Thus, it was held that the establishment of a proper foundation
for the admission of a recording provided adequate assurance that proper safeguards were
observed for the preservation of the recording and for its protection against tampering.
In the case at bar, one can easily discern that the proper foundation for the admissibility of the
tape recording was not adhered to. It bears stressing that Lim categorically admitted in the
witness stand that he was not familiar at all with the process of tape recording and that he had
to instruct his adopted daughter to record Torralbas radio broadcasts. Clearly, Shirly Lim, the
person who actually recorded petitioner Torralbas radio show on 11 April 1994, should have
been presented by the prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the
purported tape recording for said date. Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis
for the trial court to admit the tape recording Exhibit "D" in evidence.

In view of our disallowance of the 11 April 1994 tape recording, we are constrained to examine
the records of this case in order to determine the sufficiency of evidence stacked against
petitioner Torralba, bearing in mind that in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused can only be
sustained upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In his comprehensive book on evidence, our former colleague, Justice Ricardo Francisco, wrote
that "[e]vidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as
evidence when the identity of the speaker is established either by the testimony of a witness
who saw him broadcast his message or speech, or by the witness recognition of the voice of
the speaker."3
The records of this case are bereft of any proof that a witness saw petitioner Torralba broadcast
the alleged libelous remarks on 11 April 1994. Lim, however, stated that while petitioner
Torralbas radio program on that date was being tape recorded by his adopted daughter, he was
so near the radio that he could even touch the same. In effect, Lim was implying that he was
listening to "Tug-Ani ang Lungsod" at that time. In our view, such bare assertion on the part of
Lim, uncorroborated as it was by any other evidence, fails to meet the standard that a witness
must be able to "recognize the voice of the speaker." Being near the radio is one thing; actually
listening to the radio broadcast and recognizing the voice of the speaker is another. Indeed, a
person may be in close proximity to said device without necessarily listening to the contents of a
radio broadcast or to what a radio commentator is saying over the airwaves.
What further undermines the credibility of Lims testimony is the fact that he had an ax to grind
against petitioner Torralba as he was previously accused by the latter with the crime of libel and
for which he was found guilty as charged by the court. Surely then, Lim could not present
himself as an "uninterested witness" whose testimony merits significance from this Court.