|
Global E-commerce
Buy Online
|
|
Lex Traditia |
|
Forgery, its Determination. Uphold Public Document despite Conflict of Evidence. To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 54719-50, 17 January 1985, quoting Osborn, The Problem of Proof) that: [']The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.['] xxx [W]e cannot accept the claim of forgery where no comparison of private respondent’s signatures was made, no witness (save for private respondent herself) was presented to testify on the same, much less an expert witness called, and all that was presented was private respondent's testimony that her signature on the questioned Deed was forged. Indeed, even when the evidence is conflicting, the public document must still be upheld. (VIAJE et al. vs. PAMINTEL et al., G.R. No. 147792, January 23, 2006) Enter here for complete text. Download Supreme Court of the Philippines Jurisprudence here. Download Philippine Laws, Issuances and Circulars here. EO 52, PD 46, PD 1602, PD 1613, RA 7796, RA 7844, RA 7975, RA 8369, RA 8533, RA 8552,
RA 8559, RA 8560, RA 8791, RA 9225, RA 9255,
|
|
More downloads added weekly |