This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| x x x (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by the law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.[57] (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.[19] We agree with the trial and appellate courts in finding that the police blotter was properly admitted as they form part of official records.[20] Entries in police records made by a police officer in the performance of the duty especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.[21] Although police blotters are of little probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. | |||||