Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Torralba v. PP

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: 1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; 3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; 5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; 6) identification of the speakers; and 7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Torralba v. PP

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    2K views2 pages
    It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: 1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; 3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; 5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; 6) identification of the speakers; and 7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

    Original Title

    Torralba v. Pp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: 1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; 3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; 5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; 6) identification of the speakers; and 7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Torralba v. PP

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: 1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; 3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; 5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; 6) identification of the speakers; and 7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Cirse Francisco “Choy” Torralba v.

    People of the Philippines


    G.R. No. 153699. August 22, 2005
    Second Division
    Chico – Nazario, J.:

    DOCTRINE:

    The person who actually recorded should have be presented as a witness in order to lay the
    proper foundation for the admission of the purported tape recording. Without the requisite
    authentication, there is no basis for the trial court to admit the tape recording in evidence.

    FACTS:

    Cirse Francisco “Choy” Torralba was charged with the crime of libel for allegedly
    discrediting the honesty, integrity, reputation, prestige and honor of the late CFI Judge Agapito Y.
    Hontanosas in the former’s radio program. As an evidence, the prosecution presented Segundo
    Lim and Atty. Manuel Hontanosas, incorporator and then president respectively, of the The
    Maritime Services Incorporator (TMSI), former sponsor of Torralba’s radio program.

    Atty. Hontanosas, son of the late Judge came to know of the alleged acts of libel through a
    recording of Torralba’s radio program which Segundino asked his adopted daughter Shirly Lim to
    record. Torralba objected to the admissibility in evidence of the recording that the prosecution
    should have presented Shirly Lim, the one who actually recorded the same, for authentication.

    ISSUE:

    Is the proper authentication of the recording by Shirly Lim, the one who recorded the tape,
    necessary for the recording’s admissibility in evidence?

    RULING:

    Yes. Without the said authentication, the tape recording is incompetent and inadmissible
    in evidence.

    It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a
    proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction,
    it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given
    probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: 1) a showing that the
    recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2) a showing that the operator of the device was
    competent; 3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) a showing that
    changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; 5) a showing of the manner of the
    preservation of the recording; 6) identification of the speakers; and 7) a showing that the testimony
    elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

    These requisites were laid down precisely to address the criticism of susceptibility to
    tampering of tape recordings. Thus, the establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of
    a recording provided adequate assurance that proper safeguards were observed for the preservation
    of the recording and for its protection against tampering. In the case at bar, one can easily discern
    that proper foundation for the admissibility of the tape recording was not adhered to.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy