Admissibility of the Police Report
Malayan Insurance contends that, even without the presentation of the police investigator who prepared the police report, said report is still admissible in evidence, especially since respondents failed to make a timely objection to its presentation in evidence.[16] Respondents counter that since the police report was never confirmed by the investigating police officer, it cannot be considered as part of the evidence on record.[17]
Indeed, under the rules of evidence, a witness can testify only to those facts which the witness knows of his or her personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from the witness’ own perception.[18] Concomitantly, a witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned from others either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters.[19] Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what the witness has learned. This is known as the hearsay rule.[20]
As discussed in D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. CA,[21] “Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony or statements; the general rule that excludes hearsay as evidence applies to written, as well as oral statements.”
There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Rules of Court, among which are entries in official records.[22] Section 44, Rule 130 provides:
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the
In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources,[23] this Court reiterated the requisites for the admissibility in evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule of entries in official records, thus: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his or her duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which must have been acquired by the public officer or other person personally or through official information.
Notably, the presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the above requisites could be adequately proved.[24]
Here, there is no dispute that SPO1 Dungga, the on-the-spot investigator, prepared the report, and he did so in the performance of his duty. However, what is not clear is whether SPO1 Dungga had sufficient personal knowledge of the facts contained in his report. Thus, the third requisite is lacking.
Respondents failed to make a timely objection to the police report’s presentation in evidence; thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to do so.[25] As a result, the police report is still admissible in evidence.
