JUMALON, Jewelyn A.
4B
ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and
JOSELITO TAMAYO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 108280-83; November 16, 1995, Puno, J.:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANNIE FERRER, accused,
ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and
JOSELITO TAMAYO, accused-appellants.
G.R. Nos. 114931-33; November 16, 1995, Puno, J.:
FACTS:
A rally was held by Marcos loyalists at Luneta. Since they have no permit, they were dispersed.
Later in the afternoon, 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. Ferrer angrily ordered the loyalists “Gulpihin ninyo and
mga Cory hecklers!" Then she continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin,
Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw". As a
result, Salcedo (who was only attacked because he was wearing a yellow shirt) died due to the
mauling given to him by the loyalists.
Thus, several informations were filed in court against eleven persons identified as Marcos
loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo.
The cases were consolidated and raffled to the RTC Manila. All of the accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses,
including two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, and the police officers who
were at the Luneta at the time of the incident. In support of their testimonies, the prosecution
likewise presented documentary evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and
various photographs taken during the mauling.
The RTC rendered a decision finding Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los
Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision of the RTC by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing
the penalty of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The CA
found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito
Tamayo of homicide because the information against him did not allege the said qualifying
circumstance.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in admitting the photographs which were not properly identified.
HELD:
NO.
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. Winlove
Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used the photographs 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 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.
