Evidence: Officer Who Prepared Traffic Accident Report Must Be Presented In Court... - The Lawyer's Post

See - Evidence: Officer Who Prepared Traffic Accident Report Must Be Presented In Court... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, the Traffic Accident Investigation Report cannot be given probative weight. Section 44 of Rule 130 provides:

SEC. 44. Entries in official records – Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Moreover, for the Traffic Accident Investigation Report to be admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the following requisites must be present:

x x x (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.

Regrettably, in this case, petitioner failed to prove the third requisite cited above. As correctly noted by the courts below, while the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as evidence, the investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally or through official information. Neither was there any explanation as to why such officer was not presented. We cannot simply assume, in the absence of proof, that the account of the incident stated in the report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating officer who prepared it.

Thus, while petitioner presented its assured to testify on the events that transpired during the vehicular collision, his lone testimony, unsupported by other preponderant evidence, fails to sufficiently establish petitioner’s claim that respondents’ negligence was, indeed, the proximate cause of the damage sustained by Cham’s vehicle.

x x x."

See - 

G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014, STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, RESPONDENTS.