while the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as evidence, the investigating officer

who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify that he had sufficient knowledge of the
facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally or through official information. Neither was
there any explanation as to why such officer was not presented. We cannot simply assume, in the
absence of proof, that the account of the incident stated in the report was based on the personal
knowledge of the investigating officer who prepared it.

January 13, 2016

G.R. No. 198627

DST MOVERS CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

00000
A police report is considered "hearsay," which is usually inadmissible
evidence. x x x Generally, it's because the police officer did not personally
observe the incident. www.alllaw.com
by definition, police reports are hearsay: an out-of-court statement, used to prove the truth of the
matter asserted (i.e., to prove the truth of what's stated in the report).

))))))))))))))

The pictures of the damaged

car only demonstrate the
impact of the collision

Dra. dela Llana contends that the pictures of the damaged car show that the massive impact of the
collision caused her whiplash injury. We are not persuaded by this bare claim. Her insistence that
these pictures show the causation grossly belies common logic. These pictures indeed demonstrate
the impact of the collision. However, it is a far-fetched assumption that the whiplash injury can also
be inferred from these pictures.

B.

it should be borne in mind that "hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative
value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay
evidence rule,"33
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for it has no probative
value.34

January 23, 2017

G.R. No. 215009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
CARMEN SANTORIO GALENO, Respondent.

CITING:

Philippine Home Assurance Corporation v. CA, 327 Phil. 255, 268 (1996) citing Baguio v. CA, G.R.
33

No. 93417, September 14, 1993, 226 SCRA 366, 370.

34
People v. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917, 924 (1996).

Medical certificate even if admitted in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, was still
without probative value because the physician or doctor or the hospital's official who issued it, was
not called to the witness stand to validate it or to attest to it.
A medical certificate would be hearsay and inadmissible in evidence without the affirmation or
confirmation on the witness stand of the physician who prepared it11 and corroborated by the
testimony of the physician who had examined the patient.12

Officer Shimp testified that the man pictured on the booking information sheet was the same
person who was battered by Stacey in this case. The booking printout identified the man pictured as
Ricky Fowler. The document thus constituted hearsay evidence because it was offered for its truth—i.e.,
to prove that the man in the mugshot was indeed Ricky.
At most, the exhibits only proves physical or facial appearance. It
may be persuasive that - Mug shots and testimony that a victim identified the defendant from
mug shots reveals that the defendant has an arrest record and is therefore not admissible unless it has
substantial probative value on a contested issue. . www.law.indiana.edu

The mugshot photograph was relevant to the material issue of

identity. Clemons provided the police with copies of photographs she
had obtained from Facebook, depicting the man she claimed had robbed her. The purpose
of the mugshot was to show the jurors Estrada's appearance at the time of his arrest so they could
compare his appearance with that of the man in the Facebook photographs. Because Estrada's hair was
longer at the time of trial, the mugshot presented a more accurate comparison. (See People
v. Peralez (1971) 14
Cal.App.3d 368, 377[police photograph of the defendant
taken at the time of his arrest "was relevant to the identity of the
[defendant] because of the change in his appearance between the time
of booking and the time of trial"].)