Part 10 Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res Ipsa Loquitur- It literally means the thing speaks for itself.
This doctrine provides that the fact of the

occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for
defendant to meet with an explanation. Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is
shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care.
Requisites in applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. The occurrence of an injury;
2. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant;
3. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if
those who had control or management used proper care; and
4. The absence of explanation by the defendant
The application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. It is
considered merely as evidentiary or in the nature of procedural rule. It is simply in the process of such
proof, permitting the plaintiff to present enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine,
creating an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of
going forward with the proof to the contrary. (Ramos, et. al. v. CA, G.R. No. 124354, Dec. 29, 1999).
Rule on Partial Credibility of a witness- The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and
disbelieved in another part, depending on the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.
If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to
deceive, the court may disregard all the witness’ testimony. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in
one thing, false in everything).
The trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it
plainly overlooked matters of substance which, if considered, might affect the results of the review. The
credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe
and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand.
 May the uncorroborated testimony of an accused who turned into a State witness suffice to
convict his co-accused?
Yes. It may suffice to convict his co-accused if it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward
manner and is full of details which by their nature could not have been the result of deliberate
afterthought, otherwise, it needs corroboration, the presence or lack of which may ultimately
decide the case of the prosecution and the fate of the accused.
 May the testimony alone of the complaining party in a rape case sufficient to convict the
accused? Yes. In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and
material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. No woman would openly
admit that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private
parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need
to narrate in detail how she was raped, if she was not raped at all. This ruling especially holds
true where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.
 What is the Sweetheart Theory? It is an admission by the accused of sexual intercourse with the
victim but argues that they were lovers and the act is consensual and consequently places on
the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be
worthy of judicial acceptance, such defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial,
or other evidence. Corroborative proof like notes, pictures or tokens that such a relationship
had really existed must be presented (People v. Hapin, G.R. No.175782, Aug. 24, 2007).
 Is extrajudicial confession a sufficient ground for conviction? It is not sufficient ground for
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
 What is corpus delicti? It is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It
refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the deceased or to
the ashes of a burned building. The corpus delicti may be proven by the credible testimony of a
sole witness, not necessarily by physical evidence (Rimorin v. People, G.R. No. 146481, Apr. 30,
2003).
 What are the elements of corpus delicti?
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and
2. A person’s criminal responsibility for the act (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148919, Dec.
17, 2002).
Note: The identity of the accused is not a necessary element of the corpus delicti.
 What are the elements of illegal possession of firearm which constitute the corpus delicti?
1. The existence of the firearm; and
2. That it has been actually held with intent to possess (animus possidendi) by the
accused without the corresponding license therefor. (People v. Solayao, G.R. No. 119220, Sept.
20, 1996).

Part 10 Res Ipsa Loquitur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 10 Res Ipsa Loquitur

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Part 10 Res Ipsa Loquitur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Res Ipsa Loquitur- It literally means the thing speaks for itself.

This doctrine provides that the fact of the

Requisites in applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

1. The occurrence of an injury;

4. The absence of explanation by the defendant

 What are the elements of corpus delicti?

1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and

You might also like