SAN BEDA COLLEGE

COLLEGE OF LAW
638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila, Metro Manila
Legal Research and Writing
SULIT, Darren Jed M.

1E

Movie Review: The Verdict (1982)

Issue: Whether or not based on Philippine Law, Jurisprudence, and Rules of Court, the testimony
of the Rebuttal Witness for the complainant and the document she divulged and presented as
evidence to support her allegation is admissible as EVIDENCE and hence, should be the basis
for judgment.
No. Under Philippine Law, Jurisprudence and Rules of Court, the document which the Rebuttal
Witness divulged and presented to support her allegation is inadmissible as evidence, hence,
should not be the basis for judgment because of the following reasons:
I.

According to Section 3 Rule 130, Rules of Court, the original document must be
produced. No other evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134, Rules of Court). In relation to the
aforementioned Rule, Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that when the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated.
a. The document which Kaitlin Costello Price, the Rebuttal Witness, presented was a
photocopy of the admission slip of the deceased patient. Such evidence presented
is in contrast with our Rules of Court, in pursuance to Section 3 Rule 130, Rules
of Court, that no other evidence shall be admissible except for the original
document itself.
b. The photocopy of the admission slip is considered secondary evidence, thus, it is

inadmissible because the authentic document was in the possession of the adverse
party. It is inadmissible in pursuance to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
because the original has not been lost or destroyed, and was in the possession of
the adverse party (Country Bankers Insurance Corporation vs. Lagman G.R. No.
165487).

II.

Another reason for its inadmissibility is that the evidence presented by the Rebuttal
Witness, which is the admission slip is a private document in pursuance to Section 19
Rule 132, Rules of Court, and private documents under Section 20 Rule 132, Rules of
Court before being considered as authentic and be admissible as evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either (a) by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker considered (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134,
Rules of Court).
a. Not a single process or investigation was shown in the movie that would justify
the authenticity of the said evidence, the only thing mentioned in the movie that
would justify the claim that the document was an authentic private is the signature
KC of the Rebuttal Witness on the admission slip which was later photocopied
by her to prove that there was a negligence on the part of the doctor of the
deceased. There was no action nor investigation done to prove the authenticity of
the signature of the Rebuttal Witness in pursuance to Section 22 Rule 132, Rules
of Court.

III.

The claim of the Rebuttal Witness that there was negligence on the part of the doctor
of the patient was shown in the admittance slip. As a medical practice, it is mentioned
in the movie that a patient should refrain from eating up to 9 hours prior to induction
of anesthetic. The reason is that if a patient has eaten within 1 hour prior to the
injecting of the anesthetic, there is a possibility that the patient will vomit food in her
mouth that will lead to dangers to her health. The aforementioned circumstances
happened to the patient in the movie which resulted to the death of the patient, was
shown in the admission slip. After the medical procedure the doctor called the
Rebuttal Witness and told her that he had had 5 difficult deliveries in a row and was
tired, thus, he never looked at the admittance form. The doctor then told the Rebuttal
Witness, who was a nurse on duty and present in the operation to change the form
regarding the patient which resulted to her death. The doctor told the Rebuttal
Witness to change the 1 to a 9 or else he would fire her. As per the claim of the
Rebuttal Witness, there was alteration in the document, which is related to Section 31
Rule 132, Rules of Court is considered (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134,
Rules of Court).
a. In pursuance to Section 31 Rule 132, Rules of Court which sets up a guideline in
proving that there was an alteration in the document and must be proven as an
admissible evidence, the Rule states that one may show that the alteration was
made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the
alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to
do that, the document shall not be an admissible evidence. There was inaction on
the part of the plaintiff and Rebuttal Witness that would prove that there was an
alteration on the admission slip, thus the said document shall not be an admissible
evidence.

Footnotes:
Perez, J. (2011, July 13). Country Bankers Insurance Corporation vs Lagman G.R. No.
165487. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from Supreme Court of the Philippines:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm
Revised Rules on Evidence. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2016, from The Lawphil
Project: http://www.lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_128-134_evidence.html