KEY LEGAL ISSUE #4

1. EXPERT WITNESS and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in ENVIRONMENTAL CASES KEY LEGAL ISSUE #4

2. Under Philippine rules, it is sufficient that the expertise of the witness is supported by the following factors: Education and training; Detailed and first-hand familiarity with the facts of case; and Presentation of the authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.

3. The matter of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court. An expert witness may be impeached, or the weight of his opinion lessened, by the opposing party’s presentation of contrary evidence or pointing out paradoxes in his testimony. In the cross-examination of an expert witness, great latitude is allowed the examining counsel to test the credibility of the expert witness.

4. For the guidance of the trial court, the credibility of the expert’s opinion may further be tested based on facts proved or admitted, or on facts hypothetically assumed to be true, as against the opinion of other experts on the subject as they appear in books or encyclopedia and scientific journals.

5. Expert opinions on scientific and technical matters are generally not conclusive and they are regarded as purely advisory in character. In the exercise of its discretion, the court may choose to give value to the expert’s testimony or to reject it.

6. The court need not give substantial weight to expert opinion when from the facts and evidence on record the court can already arrive at a conclusion. The court may need the opinion of an expert witness when a matter requires the use or application of scientific and technical knowledge to be understood in relation to the issues in dispute. Expert opinion was accorded controlling or conclusive effect when common knowledge utterly failed, and upon careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances attendant in a case.

7. Factors for the court to consider in determining the weight and sufficiency of expert testimony: The ability and character of the expert witness; His actions on the witness stand; The process of reasoning by which he has supported his opinion; His possible bias in favour of the side for whom he testifies;

8. (cont.) The fact that he is a paid witness; The relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies; and Any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statement.

9. The value of the opinion of an expert witness on scientific or technical matters that the court has to weigh depends on: The facts obtaining in each case; The knowledgeability and experience of the expert on the subject; and How best the expert may be able to assist the court arrive at a conclusion.

10. Under the Philippine Rules of Court, scientific evidence may consist of: Object or Real Evidence; Documentary Evidence; and Testimonial or Oral Evidence.

11. When an object or real evidence is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be presented as part of the testimony of the person who seized the evidence, or who has custody of it. This kind of evidence must be authenticated, either by identification by witnesses – whether expert or ordinary, or by admission of the parties.

12. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases specifically allows the presentation of photographs, videos, and other similar evidence of events, acts, transactions over wildlife, wildlife by-products or derivatives, forest products, or mineral resources. Such evidence is admissible only if it is authenticated by the person who took the photograph or video, or by someone who was present when said evidence was taken, or by any other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

13. Documentary Evidence may consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents, such aspermits, licenses, records, scientific publications, and analysis results. Testimonial Evidence includes both oral and written evidence, such as depositions and affidavits. The affidavits of witnesses shall be in question and answer form and shall constitute the direct examination of the witnesses.

14. To be admissible, scientific or technical evidence must be both relevant and competent. Scientific or technical evidence is relevant when it is important to the issues for the resolution of the case. Scientific or technical evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the law or the rules.

15. The FRYE-SCHWARTZ and DAUBERT-KUMHO STANDARDS in American jurisprudence has had persuasive effect on Philippine jurisprudence in the assessment of scientific or technical evidence. The primordial criterion is whether or not the reasoning and methodology of the scientific or technical evidence is scientifically valid, and whether or not such reasoning and methodology can be properly applied to the facts of the case.

16. In assessing the probative value, credibility or reliability of scientific or technical evidence, the courts should consider, among other things, the following data: How the samples were collected; How they were handled or chain of custody; The possibility of contamination of the samples; The testing methodology or procedure followed in analyzing the samples; Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests;

17. (cont.) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests; and The reliability of the test results, taking into consideration the following: Whether the theory or methods used can be and has been tested, subjected to peer review and publication; and General acceptance of the standards and controls to ensure the correctness of the data generated.

18. To address the issue of availability of scientific or technical evidence, the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases recognize the efficiency and effectiveness of procuring photographs, videos, documents or other materials that can easily prove the existence of the evidence.

19. The courts must rely on the scientific and technical expertise of the other branches of government. Adequate training of, and close coordinationamongenforcement agencies and prosecutors is important in securing the availability and integrity of the evidence.

20. THANK YOU!TERIMAH KASIH!