"xxx.
After establishing that the medico-legal report shall be given weight and credence, Dr. Madrid's testimony that she is familiar with Dr. Baluyut's signature and her interpretations of Dr. Baluyut's medico-legal report, shall also be given weight and credence.
The medico-legal report shall be given weight and credence, even if the physician who examined and prepared it, was not presented in court.
First, Dr. Baluyut's issuance of the medico-legal report falls under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, "Entries in official records made in the performance of [her] duty [as] a public officer of the Philippines, x x x are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated."
Dr. Baluyut, a government doctor, and who by actual practice and by virtue of her oath as civil service official, is competent to examine persons and issue medico-legal reports. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of Dr. Baluyut's functions and duties when she issued the medico-legal reports. In the absence of evidence proving the contrary, Dr. Baluyut's finding that AAA had sexual intercourse with Tuyor, and was seven weeks pregnant when she was examined, are conclusive.
Second, when Dr. Madrid testified in court, she identified the signature of Dr. Baluyut in Medico-Legal Report No. 2007-4907, and mentioned that she is familiar with Dr. Baluyut's signature because she saw Dr. Baluyut sign a document, to wit:
Pros. Dumaual :I am showing you a Medico[-]Legal [Rjeport prepared by Dr. Irene D. Baluy[u]t. Will you go over this document[?]. Where is the Medico[-]Legal Report that you are referring to?
Witness :This is the one. This is the Medico[-]Legal Report No. 2007-4907 prepared by Dr. Baluy[u]t and this is her signature, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Dumaual :And how did you come to know that is the signature of Dr. Baluy[u]t?
Witness : I already saw her signing a document, sir.25
Under Section 50(b), Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, "[T]he opinion of a witness x x x may be received in evidence regarding x x x [a] handwriting with which [s]he has sufficient familiarity."
Since Dr. Madrid was familiar with Dr. Baluyut's signature, because both of them work at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), and she saw Dr. Baluyut sign a document, Dr. Madrid's testimony with regard to Dr. Baluyut's signature is admissible as an opinion of an ordinary witness.
Third, Dr. Madrid, a doctor from the Child Protection Unit (CPU) of the PGH, is an expert witness:
Pros. Dumaual : Madam Witness, since when have you been a doctor of CPU-PGH?
Witness : Since January, 1997, sir.
Pros. Dumaual : [Doctor,] [y]ou said that you were already connected with the PGH since 1997.
Witness : Yes, sir.
Pros. Dumaual : And on October 26, 2007[,] how long have you been a medico legal officer?
Witness : 10 years, sir.26
Under Section 49 of the Rules of Evidence, "The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which [s]he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence."
The prosecution was able to establish Dr. Madrid's expertise in the relevant medical field. Dr. Madrid's interpretation of the entries made by Dr. Baluyut in the medico-legal report is admissible as expert testimony.
With respect to the probative value of Dr. Madrid's expert testimony, this will depend on her credibility as an expert witness and the relevance of her testimony to the issue at hand. As a rule, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal.27 In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.28 The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court.29
Dr. Madrid testified as regards Dr. Baluyut's findings contained in the medico-legal report, to wit:
Pros. Dumaual : Can you tell us the case of [AAA] based on the data record?
Witness : Based on the record [AAA] appeared before Dr. Baluy[u]t on October 26, 2007 and conducted the examination and attached to the record the picture of the said victim, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Dumaual : What can you say about the findings of Dr. Baluy[u]t to [AAA]?
Witness : Based on the medical examination of Dr. Baluy[u]t that there is a definite evidence of sexual abuse on the genitalia of the victim on the 5:00 o'clock position, sir.30
There is no substantial reason to justify the reversal of the RTC's assessment and conclusion on the probative value of Dr. Madrid's expert testimony. Moreso, the CA concurred with the RTC on the matter. The relevance of Dr. Madrid's testimony to the issue at hand was also established where she testified that based on the medico-legal report, AAA was sexually abused.
Xxx."
G. R. No. 241780, October 12, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO TUYOR Y BANDERAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
https://lawphil.net/judjris/juri2020/oct2020/gr_241780_2020.html
