This case involved the murder of Stephen Salcedo during a rally held by Marcos loyalists in Luneta. Witnesses identified several accused as participating in mauling and beating Salcedo until he lost consciousness and died. Photographs of the incident were published in newspapers and presented as evidence. The issue was whether these photographs should be admitted without identification by the photographer. The Supreme Court ruled the photographs were admissible because their accuracy was established when some accused used the photos to argue their non-participation, thereby admitting the photos were accurate representations of the crime scene.
This case involved the murder of Stephen Salcedo during a rally held by Marcos loyalists in Luneta. Witnesses identified several accused as participating in mauling and beating Salcedo until he lost consciousness and died. Photographs of the incident were published in newspapers and presented as evidence. The issue was whether these photographs should be admitted without identification by the photographer. The Supreme Court ruled the photographs were admissible because their accuracy was established when some accused used the photos to argue their non-participation, thereby admitting the photos were accurate representations of the crime scene.
This case involved the murder of Stephen Salcedo during a rally held by Marcos loyalists in Luneta. Witnesses identified several accused as participating in mauling and beating Salcedo until he lost consciousness and died. Photographs of the incident were published in newspapers and presented as evidence. The issue was whether these photographs should be admitted without identification by the photographer. The Supreme Court ruled the photographs were admissible because their accuracy was established when some accused used the photos to argue their non-participation, thereby admitting the photos were accurate representations of the crime scene.
Several informations were filed in court against eleven
persons (Sison et al) identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a supporter of Cory Aquino, which happened on the occasion of a rally held by the Marcos loyalists at Luneta. After being asked to disperse the crowd for not having with them the required permit, the loyalists started hurling stones toward the police officers at the scene, and directed their ire against Cory supporters. Salcedo, wearing a yellow shirt was ganged upon by several men, and he was beaten and mauled. When he tried to get away from his attackers by running away, the attackers ran after him and when they caught up with him, he was further beaten until he was knocked unconscious. He was dead upon arriving at the PGH. All these were w i t n e s s e d b y R e n at o B an c u l o , a c i g ar e t t e v e n d o r . B a n c u l o an d Sumilang (who was also a witness who tried to help Salcedo but to no avail) were principal witnesses for the prosecution. The incident was also witnessed by photographers, whose pictures were published in major newspapers in Metro Manila and were presented as evidence as to the participation of the accused in the mauling. Several of the accused were photographed with Salcedo. Despite their defense of alibis, the trial court convicted several of the accused of homicide and acquitted the others. Upon appeal to the CA, the charge was qualified to murder. In the SC, the accused question the admissibility of the photographs taken of the victims as he was being mauled at the Luneta, for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the photographs should be admitted as
documentary evidence against the accused RULING:
Yes.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 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 ad missibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not only the 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. Even if the person who took the photographs was not presented to identify them, the use of these photos by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime i s an a d m i s s i on o f t h e e x ac t n e s s an d ac c u r ac y t h e r e o f. T h at t h e p h o t o s ar e f ai t h fu l representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat.