This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures.[64] This is so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, because he has seen the person write; or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or has been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the handwriting or signature of a person with which he has sufficient familiarity.[65] | |||||
|
2007-02-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is true that in election contests, where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is at issue, the ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence, unless the same cannot be produced, in which case the election returns would be the best evidence. And when the handwritings on the ballots are the subject matter of the election contest, the best evidence would be the ballots themselves as the COMELEC can examine or compare these handwritings even without assistance from handwriting experts.[32] | |||||