Saturday, November 5, 2016

in arriving at these conclusions, the city prosecutor already delved into the merits of the respondents’ defense.  This is contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of a party’s defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.7  The allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a full-blown trial in which evidence shall be analyzed, weighed, given credence or disproved.⁠8  The preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence⁠9.  Simply put, in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the rules of evidence that, as a rule, is outside his technical knowledge.⁠10 
That the findings of the city prosecutor should be ventilated in a full-blown trial is highlighted by the reality that the authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, or its  similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature11.  The duty to determine the authenticity of a signature rests on the judge who must conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.  Thus, Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting “with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine.”⁠12 
Read in this light, the respondents’ defense that there are striking similarities in the specimen signatures they submitted and those of the questioned deeds is  a matter of evidence whose consideration is proper only in a full-blown trial.  In that proper forum, the respondents can present evidence to prove their defense and controvert the questioned documents report; they can raise as issue the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the examination.

No comments:

Post a Comment