Evidence Digest: EMILIO MANALO vs ROBLES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. (1956)

Topic: Official Records (Rule 130, Section 44)

EMILIO MANALO vs ROBLES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
[99 Phil. 729 G.R. No. L-8171, August 16, 1956]

Facts:
The plaintiffs are parents of the deceased 11 year old kid who was ran over by a taxi in an accident. They filed the action against the taxicab company to enforce its subsidiary liability.

To prove their case, the plaintiffs introduced a copy of the decision in the criminal case convicting the driver of homicide through reckless imprudence, the writs of execution to enforce the civil liability, and the returns of the sheriff showing that the two writs of execution were not satisfied because of the insolvency of the driver, the sheriff being unable to locate any property in his name. 

Over the objections of the Company, the trial court admitted this evidence.

Defendant-appellant now contends that the evidence is inadmissible.

Issue:
If the sheriff's return of the writs of execution is covered by the official record rules as an exception to the hearsay rule?


Held:
YES. A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law and forming part of official records, and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The return in itself is sufficient. The sheriff making the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his entry.