SAN BEDA COLLEGE

COLLEGE OF LAW
638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila, Metro Manila
Legal Research and Writing
SULIT, Darren Jed M.

1E

Movie Review: The Verdict (1982)

Issue: Whether or not based on Philippine Law, Jurisprudence, and Rules of Court, the testimony
of the Rebuttal Witness for the complainant and the document she divulged and presented as
evidence to support her allegation is admissible as EVIDENCE and hence, should be the basis
for judgment.
No. Under Philippine Law, Jurisprudence and Rules of Court, the document which the Rebuttal
Witness divulged and presented to support her allegation is inadmissible as evidence, hence,
should not be the basis for judgment because of the following reasons:
I.

According to Section 3 Rule 130, Rules of Court, the original document must be
produced. No other evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134, Rules of Court). In relation to the
aforementioned Rule, under par. 2 Section 3 Rules 130, Rules of court when the
original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, the evidence
presented will be considered (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134, Rules of
Court).
a. The document which Kaitlin Costello Price, the Rebuttal Witness, presented was a
photocopy of the admission slip of the deceased patient. Such evidence presented
is in contrast with our Rules of Court, in pursuance to Section 3 Rule 130, Rules
of Court, that no other evidence shall be admissible except for the original
document itself.
b. In pursuance to par. 2 Section 3 Rules 130, Rules of court the photocopy of the
admission slip as an evidence must not be considered an exemption because there
was inaction on the part of the plaintiff that failed to show it after a reasonable
notice.

II.

Another reason is that the evidence presented by the Rebuttal Witness, which is the
admission slip is a private document in pursuance to Section 19 Rule 132, Rules of
Court, and private documents under Section 20 Rule 132, Rules of Court before being
considered as authentic and be admissible as evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker considered (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134, Rules of Court).

a. Not a single process or investigation was shown in the movie that would justify
the authenticity of the said evidence, the only thing mentioned in the movie that
would justify the claim that the document was an authentic private is the signature
KC of the Rebuttal Witness on the admission slip which was later photocopied
by her to prove that there was a negligence on the part of the doctor of the
deceased. There was no action nor investigation done to prove the authenticity of
the signature of the Rebuttal Witness in pursuance to Section 22 Rule 132, Rules
of Court.
III.

The claim of the Rebuttal Witness that there was negligence on the part of the doctor
of the patient was shown in the admittance slip. It is mentioned in the movie that
ideally a patient should refrain from taking nourishment up to 9 hours prior to
induction of anesthetic as a medical practice. Because if a patient has taken
nourishment within 1 hour prior to the injecting of the anesthetic there is a grave risk
that the patient will aspirate food particles into her mask; the aforementioned
circumstances which happened to the patient in the movie was shown in the
admission slip of the patient in which resulted to the death of the patient. After the
medical procedure the doctor called the Rebuttal Witness and told her that he had had
5 difficult deliveries in a row and was tired, thus, he never looked at the admittance
form. The doctor then told the Rebuttal Witness, who was a nurse on duty and present
in the operation to change the form regarding the patient which resulted to her death.
The doctor told the Rebuttal Witness to change the 1 to a 9 or else, or else, he said he
would fire her. As per the claim of the Rebuttal Witness, there was alteration in the
document, which is related to Section 31 Rule 132, Rules of Court is considered
(Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128-134, Rules of Court).
a. In pursuance to Section 31 Rule 132, Rules of Court which sets up a guideline in
proving that there was an alteration in the document and must be proven as an
admissible evidence, the Rule states that one may show that the alteration was
made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the
alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to
do that, the document shall not be an admissible evidence. There was inaction on
the part of the plaintiff and Rebuttal Witness that would prove that there was an
alteration on the admission slip, thus the said document shall not be an admissible
evidence.