Entries in a POLICE BLOTTER, although regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF SUCH ENTRIES, for these are often incomplete and inaccurate.

"Appellants' contention that if AAA was positive as to their identification as the perpetrators of the crime charged, why were there two other names included in the police blotter, is also unmeritorious.

The same police blotter stated a notation that:

Progress Report on Rape Alarm (Entry Nr. 98-257). As per sworn statement of offended party AAA that the alleged suspects were Allain Ancajas and Vergel Ancajas and she refused (sic) the other suspects.55

The inclusion of the two additional names was cured by the sworn statement of AAA and her categorical declaration56 in open, court that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime charged and no other. It is well entrenched that entries in a police blotter, although regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries, for these are often incomplete and inaccurate. These, therefore, should not be given undue significance or probative value as to the facts stated therein.57"

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VERGEL ANCAJAS AND ALLAIN* ANCAJAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/oct2015/gr_199270_2015.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com