SEC. 44. Entries in official records.—Entries
in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Requisites for admissibility
(a) The entries were made by a public
officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
(b) The entrant had personal knowledge of the
facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by
persons under a legal duty to submit the same
(c) Such entries were entered in a regular manner
in the official records.
How may be proved
Entries in official records may be proved and
evidence in the manner provided by Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132.
Entries in the official records vs. entries in the
course of business
Both official and business records are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. In official records, the person making the
entry need not be deceased or unable to testify, but he must be a public
officer or a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. In
business records, the person making the entry must be deceased or unable to
testify.
Example of official record
An official record
may be a register, a cash book, official return or certificate
Cases
● The motor vehicle accident report of a police
officer, made in the performance of his duties and at about the time of the
accident, if based upon information given to him by the drivers of the vehicles
who figured in and had personal knowledge of the accident is admissible and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, being entries in
official records. (People vs. Nuque, 58
O.G. 8442)
● A sheriff’s return is an official statement by
a public official in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law and is
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Being an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, the sheriff need not testify
in court as to the facts stated in said return. (Manalo vs. Robles Trans. Co. Inc., 99 Phil 729)
● Fortus v. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330 (1968)
Facts: Ciriaca Angelo was the owner of the parcel of land. She had only
one child, Crisanta Ilagan. Crisanta predeceased her mother. Crisanta was
married to Fermin Fortus. They had an only son, the Victorino Fortus. Ciriaca
died intestate. The property therefore passed on to Victorino Fortus. However,
Victorino never caused the OCT to be cancelled and to have another issued in
his name. Ciriaca’s estate was therefore not yet closed.
Victorino Fortus and Julia Fortus were husband and wife but were
childless. Upon Victorino's death, Julia executed an affidavit of
extra-judicial summary settlement of Ciriaca’s estate and had it registered.
Rosario Novero, claiming to be an illegitimate child of Victorino with Patricia
Novero, initiated proceedings for summary settlement of Ciriaca’s estate. Julia
opposed, along with the Fortuses, who claim to be Victorino’s half-brother and
sisters. They claim to be the legitimate children of Fermin Fortus with Jacoba
Aguil.
The Fortuses did not present the marriage contract or certificate of their
alleged parents, but sought to present secondary evidence. The SC found the
testimonial evidence the Fortuses presented to lay the basis for introduction
of secondary evidence were inconsistent, incredible and insufficient
to establish than an original marriage contract was indeed executed. However,
the Fortuses presented baptismal certificates of some of them to prove the
marriage of their parents. Note that they must prove marriage because
otherwise, they would be illegitimate relatives of Victorino which would
disqualify them from inheriting from him.
Held: The record of baptism attests to the fact of the administration of
the sacrament on the date stated therein, but not the truth of the statements
therein made as to the parentage of the child baptized. Neither are the
baptismal certificates public documents or public writings, because the
parochial records of baptisms are not public or official records, as they are
not kept by public officers, and are not proof of relationship or filiation of
the child baptized.
Furthermore, though the Fortuses invoke that since for the past 30 years
their parents had deported themselves in public as husband and wife and had
been living under the same roof, the legal presumption is that they had entered
into a lawful marriage. This presumption, however, is only applicable where
there is no clear and concrete evidence showing otherwise. In this case,
however, there is a certificate from the Division of Archives to the effect
that 'no copy of the marriage record of spouses Fermin Fortus and Jacoba Aguil
supposed to have been solemnized in the year 1902 and 1905 in the Municipality
of Rosario, Batangas had been received by said office for file', and this
certification is further strengthened by the affirmation of Clemente Barbosa, a
clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer of Rosario, Batangas, that there
was no record of such marriage supposedly contracted between the spouses Fermin
Fortus and Jacoba Aguil from 1902 and 1922 of the Municipality of Rosario, Batangas.
At most, the baptismal certificates were only a prima facie proof which
oppositor Julia Fortus had overcome by satisfactory evidence to the effect that
Fermin Fortus and Jacoba Aguil were never married and hence all of their
children are not legitimate brothers or half brothers and therefore have no
right to inherit from Victorino Fortus.
Johnson v. Lutz,
Africa v. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448 (1966)
People v. Leones, 117 SCRA 382 (1982)
Manalo v. Robles Trans. Co., Inc., 99 Phil. 729 (1956)
People v. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (1993)
People v. Gabriel, G.R. No. L-107735, Feb. 1, 1996
0
Comments
