VALUE OF PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY

* Opinion evidence on the value of personal and real property. – Opinion evidence is usually admitted from persons, who are not strictly experts, but who from residing and doing business in the vicinity have familiarized themselves with land values and are more able to form and opinion on the subject at issue.

* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by eminent domain. – A person engaged in a business of holding a public office, which required the knowledge of real estate values is a competent witness as to the value of land with which he is familiar. The opinions of experts as to value, however, are not to be passively received and

blindly followed, but are to be weighed by the court and judged in view of all testimony in the case and the judge own personal knowledge of affairs.

* Market value. – The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in the open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the price and value established or shown by sale, public or private, in the ordinary course of business; the fair value of the property as between one who desires to sell and one who desires to purchase; and the general or ordinary price at which property may be bought and sold in a given locality.

* Assessed value. – Assessed value may be admitted as evidence but it is of little value ina judicial investigation to determine the market value of the property.

H. OTHER SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY * Subjects that may be proved by experts. – This includes the following:

1. Age

2. Bloodstains 3. Hair

4. X-ray, pictures

5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be deciphered

6. Language in certain writings not understood by the court

7. Unwritten law

8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws

* Qualification of witness. – The witness must be shown to the satisfaction of the court to possess sufficient knowledge to render his evidence of value.

* Opinions of courts of foreign states and nations. – Judicial opinions offered as proof of the unwritten law of a foreign state or nation have been held admissible in evidence, even in the absence of a statutory provision authorizing the admission thereof in evidence. However, the fact that a purported decision does not appear in the original reports has been held sufficient ground for disregarding it, although it does appear in an unofficial publication.

Section 50.Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding —

(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (44a)

1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

2. In general. – Well-settled is the rule that a witness can testify to those facts only which he knows of his own knowledge; he should not be allowed to state conclusions or inferences which are for the court to make.

3. Proper basis or predicate for witness’

opinion. – Before an ordinary witness may be allowed to give his opinion on the identity, handwriting, the mental sanity of a person, or to give his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person, the proper basis or predicate upon which he bases his opinion must first be laid.

4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of a person. – An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the identity of a person when he has adequate knowledge of his identity.

Because of the difficulty of describing the circumstances which established identity in terms conveying the idea of identification, witnesses who are shown to be qualified by their opportunities for observation are permitted to testify as to the identity of persons or things. The rule applies to criminal prosecutions as well as to civil actions. There are, however, instances in which opinions have been excluded – usually, it seems, because of the facts of the particular case.

Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to identity are not to be rejected because he is unable to describe the features of the person in question, or the latter’s clothing or other particulars on which the witness’

conclusion depends. Identification may be based upon voice alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to describe tones of voice in such a manner that from the description alone the court can arrive at any satisfactory conclusion.

5. Physical condition – A witness need not be an expert in medical matters in order to be competent to express an opinion as to the physical condition of another. And it is clear that in describing such a condition the witness is not required to state all the evidentiary facts on which his opinion is based; his statement may partake largely of the nature of a summary of, or conclusion from, such facts. A witness may

testify that in his judgment the defendant was about the size of one of the robbers.

6. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the handwriting of a person. – An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the handwriting of a person, with which he has sufficient familiarity. This subject is well covered by Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which provides that “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 been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.

Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.”

The evidence frequently offered on a question of the authenticity of a disputed writing or signature is that of persons who are familiar with the handwriting of the alleged writer; the opinion of such a person is universally recognized to be admissible, even though he is in no sense a handwriting expert.

Non-expert witnesses may not express an opinion on the genuineness of a writing solely from comparison, but they may express an opinion based on the knowledge received from the handwriting of the party whom they saw write.

“The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an instrumental witness himself but also an officer of the court, and whose act of notarization impressed upon the disputed Deed of Absolute Sale, the full faith and credit which attaches to a public instrument, explicitly identifying the signatures of the parties to the instrument and expressly and forthrightly stating that both had appeared before him and affixed their signatures to the said document, must be held to control and prevail over the opinion or conclusion of petitioner’s expert witness.” – Alcos, et. al vs.

Intermediate Appeallate Court.

7. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the mental sanity or insanity of a person. – An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the mental sanity of the person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of an individual, if such opinion is drawn from the conduct of the latter,

since there can be no doubt that persons of common sense, conversant with mankind, and having a practical knowledge of the world, if brought into the presence of a lunatic would, in a short time, be enabled to form an accurate and reliable opinion, not, perhaps, of the specific and precise character of the insanity as referable to a particular class of the insane malady, but certainly, in a general way, of his mental unsoundness.

8. Reason for the rule. – Reasons for this rule are found in the considerations that the facts showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently elude accurate, complete and detailed statement and consequently render it difficult to afford a satisfactory basis for the judgment of an expert;

that many witnesses can make a correct inference more readily than they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly presented to observation, insanity is really detected, if carried beyond a certain point; that an unskilled observer may be quite as able as an expert to make a clear mental comparison between the acts and conduct of a sane person and those of one who is laboring under mental disability; and that to reject the inference of an observer with suitable opportunities and faculty for observation is to refuse to consider evidence which is frequently of the highest possible value.

9. Opinion of a subscribing witness to a writing as to the mental sanity or insanity of a signer. – In will cases, a special qualification to testify exists on the part of the attesting witnesses to the will. It is commonly held that they may testify to their opinion of the testator’s soundness of mind without proof of their having had the opportunity of observing him except at the time of executing the will. Moreover, the rule supported by the overwhelming weight of authority is that no foundation need be laid for receiving the opinion of a subscribing witness to a will as to the soundness of the testator’s mind at the time of executing the will, other than to show his status as a subscribing witness. Many courts have reached such conclusion on the theory that it may be presumed that the attesting witness performed his duty to observe the mental condition of the testator’s mind at the time of executing the will.

10. Negativing testamentary capacity. – The testimony of an attesting witness to a will tending to show that the testator was of unsound mind or lacked testamentary capacity is admissible. Such is held to be the rule, notwithstanding the view is taken that a person requested to witness a will should observe the testator and be satisfied of his mental capacity before signing as a witness. Although a person

who attaches his name as a witness to a testamentary instrument impliedly certifies that the testator is of sound mind and competent to make a will, he will be permitted to contradict the attestation clause and testify as to the actual facts. That the witness may deserve censure for having attested a will of a person whom he is ready to declare of unsound mind when the validity of the instrument is later brought into question is not a sufficient reason for refusing to hear such testimony.

11. Impressions as to emotion, behavior, condition or appearance. – A witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

It is usually competent for a witness to state his impression of another’s manner or appearance, such as that the latter was “nervous” or

“excited”, that he was “mad”. But a witness cannot testify to uncommunicated motive or intention of a party, such as he thought the deceased intended to kill someone or be killed, that two people were “antagonistic”, that defendant laughed because she cut deceased, whether defendant was “joking” in what he said, that the accused “looked pretty vigorous” or that one was “jealous”, as an opinion or impression is a mere guess or speculation and inadmissible.

12. Opinion limited to expressions of his own impressions. – While one may testify in opinion form as to impression made upon his own senses, he cannot go further and testify as to the impression such facts would have had upon others. In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Washington, the trial court refused to permit a witness shown to be acquainted with the locale, to give his opinion as to whether a stranger driving over a certain street at night would reasonably believe he was on a through street.

13. Hypothetical question not permissible. – A non-expert witness cannot give an opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the accused based in whole or in part upon an abstract hypothetical question, but must base his opinion solely upon his own personal knowledge, observation, acquaintance, etc., with the accused.

14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. – In giving his opinion, the non-expert must state facts upon which his opinion was based. It is indisputable that it should appear somewhere in the testimony of the witness that he had the testimonial qualification of previous observation of the person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It must appear, as a preliminary to the expression of his opinion that he has had the means of observation. He must give the facts of his knowledge and acquaintanceship

with the person concerning whose sanity he is called to testify. After giving these facts, he may express his opinion. The weight of the opinion, or its value, is then developed further by evidence of the particular facts coming under his observation, and on which he bases his opinion.

15. Examination of non-expert witnesses. – The general rules as to the examination of witnesses, with such modification as the character of the testimony renders necessary, apply to the examination of witnesses giving evidence. A witness who has stated that he has no opinion should not be pressed to give an opinion. A question which is misleading or indefinite should not be permitted, and a question as to whether accused’s demeanor on the witness stand was different from that when the witness met him at a certain time has been excluded as unfair.

16. Cross-examination of non-expert witnesses.

– A witness testifying as to his opinion may be cross-examined as to the facts and grounds upon which his opinion is based, and generally cross-examination legitimately tending to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness and the value of his testimony should be permitted.

The cross-examination must be confined to the scope of the examination in chief, and a question based on an assumption not warranted by the evidence is inadmissible. It has been held that on cross-examination of a witness who has testified to sanity or insanity of testator, he may be asked as to testator’s capacity to make a will in order to test the witness, but not to establish the fact; but on the other hand, it has been considered that testimony of attesting witnesses, that testatrix at the time of the execution of the will was of disposing memory, received without objection, gave contestant no right to ask, on cross-examination of a non-expert for proponent, for his opinion whether testatrix was of a disposing mind.

17. Latest Jurisprudence.

People of the Philippines, vs. Efren Castillo, GR No. 186533, August 9, 2010

“The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.”

Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish AAA’s mental retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable

doubt. The Supreme Court rejected the said argument.

Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides that the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is.

In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from epilepsy since she was nine years old, which is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop schooling because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and she had difficulty answering even the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA is the eldest of her four children; however, compared to her younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending the instructions given to her at home and in school.

It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete;

mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.

Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that AAA’s impaired learning capacity, lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering simple questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance Psychologist who had an opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are indicative that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental retardation.

Section 51.Character evidence not generally