TO: Atty. Hyacinth Marie E.

Perez, Partner Perez, Perez

and Associates

FROM: Atty. Maria Aubrey B. Villamor, Junior Associate

SUBJECT: Rules of Evidence

DATE: November 28, 2017

ISSUE:

Whether the Xerox copy of the defense as well as the testimony

of the witness be considered as an admissible evidence in the case.

CONCLUSION:

Yes. According to the Rule 130 in the Rules of Court, the proof

of the existence and the due execution of the original through the

testimonies of the persons who executed the document; the

instrumental witnesses; by an eyewitness thereof; who saw it after its

execution and recognized the signatures therein; by the person

before whom it was acknowledged, or to whom its existence was

narrated. Thus, the testimony of the witness can be admitted against

the client provided that she should present her testimony before the

court along with the photocopy of the form in order for it to be

classified as a secondary evidence.

Rule 103 in the Rule of Court also states that in order to test the

relevancy and competence of the evidence, the court shall request a

proof of authentication. Based on the ruling in the case of Aquino et.

Al, v. Quiazon et. Al, 2015, if the evidence already mentioned in the
case would not be allowed to be considered in resolving whether or

not the case be dismissed, it would be absurd.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Frank Galvin found himself fired from his elite Boston firm,

leading to an alcoholic spiral that left him an ambulance chaser who

has had only four losing cases over the last three years. As a favor,

his friend and former teacher Mickey sends him a medical

malpractice case in which it is all but assured that the defense will

settle for a large amount. The case involves a young woman who was

given an anesthetic during childbirth, after which she choked on her

own vomit and was deprived of oxygen.

The young woman is now comatose and on a respirator. Her

sister and brother-in-law are hoping for a monetary award in order to

give her proper care. Frank assures them they have a strong case.

Meanwhile, Frank, who is lonely, becomes romantically involved with

Laura. Costello testifies that, shortly after the patient had become

comatose, the anesthesiologist told her to change her notes on the

admitting form to hide his fatal error. She had written down that the

patient had had a full meal only one hour before being admitted. The

doctor had failed to read the admitting notes. Thus, in ignorance, he

gave her an anesthetic that should never be given to a patient with a

full stomach. As a result, the patient vomited and choked.

Costello further testifies that, when the anesthesiologist realized

his mistake, he met with Costello in private and forced her to change

the number "1" to the number "9" on her admitting notes. But Costello
made a photocopy of the notes before she made the change, which

she brought with her to court. Concannon quickly turns the situation

around by getting the judge to declare the nurse's testimony stricken

from the record on technicalities. Consequently, the jury finds in favor

of Frank's clients. As Frank, Mickey, and the clients quietly rejoice,

the foreman asks the judge whether the jury can award more than the

amount the plaintiffs sought. The judge resignedly replies that they

can.

DISCUSSION

Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the

court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be

exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. It must be noted that

pursuant to Rule 130 in the Rules of Court, the proof of the existence

and the due execution of the original through the testimonies of the

persons who executed the document the instrumental witnesses; by

an eyewitness thereof; who saw it after its execution and recognized

the signatures therein; by the person before whom it was

acknowledged, or to whom its existence was narrated; this case must

be resolved by making the witness appear in court and provide a

factual testimony along with the photocopy documents to consider the

latter as a secondary evidence thus, be admissible in the court.

Furthermore, as what the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Aquino

et. Al, v. Quiazon et. Al, 2015, if the evidence already mentioned in

the case would not be allowed to be considered in resolving whether

or not the case be dismissed, it would be absurd. In addition, as

provided in the Rule 103 in the Rules of Court, a proof of

authentication should be requested by the court in order to verify its

validity.