Fullero Vs People

Fullero vs.
People
G.R. No. 170583, Sep 12, 2007
Ponente CHICO-NAZARIO, J
Doctrines Section 2, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, explicitly provides that a transcript
of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement
of such proceedings.
Section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, provides that when the original of
a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Brief Background
Facts Ernesto M. Fullero was convicted of falsification of a public document
and is seeking to overturn his conviction. Fullero was the Acting Chief
Operator of Iriga City Telecommunication's Office in 1988 when the
falsification occurred. He falsified his CSC 212 (Personal Data Sheet) to
make it appear that he passed the Civil Engineering Board Examinations
with a rating of 75.8%. It was later verified that Fullero never passed the
board examination for civil engineering and his name does not appear in
the book of registration for civil engineers.
During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses who testified that
they were familiar with Fullero's handwriting and signature. These
witnesses confirmed that the signature in the falsified document belonged
to Fullero. The prosecution also presented documentary evidence, such as
certifications from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and
the Civil Service Commission (CSC), to support their claims.
Fullero denied executing and submitting the falsified document, claiming

that someone else filled it up. He argued that the prosecution's evidence
was inadmissible, as it lacked proper identification and was hearsay.
Fullero also argued that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, as the
alleged falsification took place in Iriga City, not Legazpi City.
Lower Court - RTC convicted Fullero. CA affirmed RTC’s judgment.
Issue(s) Whether Exhibit F, Exhibit G and Exhibit I are admissible.
Ruling Section 2, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, explicitly provides
that a transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall
be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.
Petitioner failed to introduce proof that Exhibit F, or the Transcript of

Stenographic Notes dated 17 March 1998 of the perjury case filed by
petitioner against Magistrado in which petitioner allegedly admitted that
he is a civil engineer, is not what it purports to be. Thus, it is prima facie
correct. Moreover, as earlier elucidated, one of the exceptions to the
hearsay rule is the entries in official records made in the performance of
duty by a public officer. Exhibit F,being an official entry in the court's
records, is admissible in evidence and there is no necessity to produce the
concerned stenographer as a witness.
Section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, provides that when
the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Exhibit G, which is the
alleged letter of petitioner to the Regional Director of the CSC, Region 5,
Legazpi City, applying for the position of either a Junior
Telecommunications Engineer or Telecommunications Traffic
Supervisor; and Exhibit I, which is the machine copy of a certification
allegedly issued by the PRC attesting that petitioner is a licensed civil
engineer and which was allegedly submitted by petitioner to the Regional
Director of the CSC, Region 5, Legazpi City, as his credential in applying
for the aforesaid positions, are certified true copies of their original
documents recorded or kept in the CSC, Regional Office No. 5, Legazpi
City and, thus, admissible to prove the contents of their originals.

Fullero Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullero Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullero Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullero vs.

Fullero denied executing and submitting the falsified document, claiming

Petitioner failed to introduce proof that Exhibit F, or the Transcript of

You might also like