“Not all forms of opinion are accepted by the court.”
The word “opinion” has different meanings. It may be defined as a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind of a person about a particular matter; a belief stronger than impression; or the formal advice of an expert (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It may also refer to the reason given for a court’s judgment, finding, or conclusion (Barron’s Law Dictionary).
People enjoy giving opinions about politics, sports, government, economics, and most recently the pandemic, its extent, and (hopeful) end. Opinions are as ubiquitous as persons peopling an area.
Mainstream and social media have opened the floodgates of public opinion, whether twisted or well-meaning. Opinions are sometimes generated by interviewing bystanders, who unfortunately often possess only the bare minimum of facts concerning the issue being discussed. These are sometimes packaged as public opinion.
Opinions are also generated through surveys, both traditional or street (kalye) surveys. The topics may range from voter preferences, to satisfaction ratings, or to the current administration’s handling of controversial issues such as the West Philippine Sea, appointments in government, or alleged graft-ridden government transactions.
However reliable traditional surveys tout themselves to be, these are not evidence admissible in court for an election protest or contest case, the reason being that the respondents in those surveys are not readily identifiable, and that it does not significantly represent the class it claims to represent.
For instance, can two to three thousand respondents adequately reflect the preferences of the entire voting population? The outcome may also vary depending on the economic, educational, and political interests or prejudices of the respondents, as well as question construction.
Opinion is not acceptable in court since a witness must have personal knowledge of the matter he will testify on. However, the opinion of a witness may be received in evidence if he will testify on a matter in which he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education (Section 52, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).
The witnesses who are allowed to give their opinion in court are known as expert witnesses. Some of these experts are doctors, psychotherapists, medico-legal officers, property appraisers, ballistic experts, and forensic chemists, among others. Experts will have to be qualified as such before they testify unless the parties stipulate his or her expertise.
In one case, the Supreme Court admitted the testimony of a pathologist in a medical negligence action against a hospital and its doctors for the death of a child due to dengue fever. Although the expert witness specialized in pathology, he attended not less than 30 seminars on the subject, was exposed to pediatrics, had practiced for 16 years, and handled not less than 50 dengue-related cases (Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015).
It is not necessary for some expert witnesses to have perceived the matters he or she will testify on. However, there may be experts who can be called to confirm a previous opinion based on his perception in situ. For example, a DNA expert who interpreted the DNA result or a medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy of the deceased victim.
In certain cases, ordinary witnesses may give an opinion on identity, handwriting, and mental sanity (Section 53, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence). It is common to see in court an accused being positively identified by a witness, or to recall an out-of-court identification of a person made after seeing the suspect in a police line-up identification.
An ordinary witness may also give an opinion on handwriting to which he or she is familiar with. This corrects the notion that only a handwriting expert can testify on the genuineness of handwriting. In fact, the Rules on Evidence allows the comparison of the contested handwriting and the admitted handwriting specimen of the subject by the court or a witness (expert or not) (Section 22, Rule 132, Rules on Evidence) .
An opinion can be given of the mental sanity of a person as long as the ordinary witness is sufficiently acquainted with the former. Furthermore, a person’s impressions of the emotions, behavior, conditions, or appearance of another may also be the subject of an opinion of an ordinary witness (Section 53, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).
All these matters of opinion of ordinary witnesses are, in fact, based on their perception. It is reliable and trustworthy, because conclusions are formed based on actual perception. However, opinions on handwriting, mental sanity, or identity can still be refuted by an expert.
This can occur when the handwriting is difficult to decipher; when a person’s mental state is punctuated by lucid intervals set against a backdrop of a possible personality disorder; or when a body is mangled beyond recognition. More serious mental disorders brought about by systemic illness or substance abuse may also need elucidation by an expert.
In the Philippines, expert witnesses are presented only by parties to an action. This is unlike in foreign jurisdictions, where courts are permitted to appoint their own experts. Only amici curiae, or friends of the court, can impart information on matters of law to the court itself, and even then, only to the Supreme Court.
If the opinion of an expert is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion to determine the weight to be given to it. For this purpose, the court may consider whether the opinion is: (a) based on facts and data; (b) the product of reliable principles and methods; and (c) a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case. The court may also consider other factors to make such a determination (Section 5, Rule 133, Rules on Evidence).
Not all forms of opinion are accepted by the court. Only those opinions which are given by experts based on facts and reliable methods and principles, and those of non-expert witnesses who themselves perceived the facts in question, are admissible. It is for this reason that public opinion, no matter how strong or perceptible, cannot be admitted by a court of law.
