01:14.1
Doon na lang sa senomar ni Rafi Tulfo.
01:17.0
Dalawa yung kasal doon.
01:18.1
At least dalawa yung kasal doon.
01:20.3
Ano yung makikita mo doon na manifest? Bigamy, di ba?
01:23.8
Ano ang ebidensya na ipapakita mo doon?
01:26.5
Yung senomar, di ba?
01:27.6
Simple yung simple lang.
01:29.2
May tinatawag tayo sa batas na res ipsa loquitur.
01:31.9
The thing speaks for itself.
01:34.4
Even if the senomar is your only evidence, malakas na yun.
01:38.4
In fairness, naintindihan ko naman ang punto niya about sa senomar na ayon sa kanya, dalawang kasal daw ang makikita doon.
01:46.5
And according to him,
01:48.1
malakas na ebidensya na daw yun, by itself, to prove the crime of bigamy.
01:53.6
Actually, sa tingin ko, ang gusto niya lang sabihin dito ay,
01:57.5
the document speaks for itself.
02:00.0
Ang literal na translation kasi ng Latin phrase na res ipsa loquitur ay,
02:04.8
the thing speaks for itself.
02:06.9
So siguro, dahil ang dokumento ay isang bagay din,
02:10.7
he is of the opinion, I think, na ang res ipsa loquitur ay pwede mong i-apply sa laman ng isang dokumento.
02:18.1
Actually, ang isang public document such as a senomar under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
02:26.3
is already considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
02:32.7
Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng prima facie evidence?
02:35.9
Prima facie evidence is such evidence that,
02:39.0
if not rebutted or contradicted, will be good and sufficient on its face to establish a fact.
02:44.6
Kung hindi iko-contradict or i-re-rebut ng kabila,
02:48.1
ang nakalagay sa isang public document, gaya ng marriage certificate, birth certificate, senomar, and the like,
02:55.2
magiging sufficient na ito to prove the facts as appearing in the said certificate.
03:01.2
So ang tamang description pala na dapat ibigay sa isang public document, gaya ng senomar,
03:07.1
ay prima facie evidence, hindi res ipsa loquitur.
03:11.8
Bakit hindi res ipsa loquitur?
03:14.0
Ang res ipsa loquitur po kasi ay may specific na meaning,
03:18.1
meaning at application.
03:20.4
Let us start with its meaning in the dictionary.
03:24.1
According to Merriam-Webster,
03:26.6
res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence in tort law that permits an inference or presumption
03:33.1
that a defendant was negligent in an accident injuring the plaintiff
03:38.4
if the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.
03:46.0
Sa Black's Law Dictionary naman,
03:48.8
parehas lang ang meaning.
03:51.0
Res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself.
03:55.0
It is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was negligent,
03:58.5
which arises upon proof that the instrumentality causing the injury was in defendant's exclusive control
04:06.4
and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence.
04:13.6
Our very own Supreme Court naman, in a long line of cases,
04:18.1
Interfield Laboratories Incorporated v. OEP Philippines,
04:26.0
has defined and or described res ipsa loquitur in this manner.
04:32.0
While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed,
04:36.4
and while the mere happening of an accident or injury will not generally give rise to an inference or presumption
04:42.4
that it was due to negligence on defendant's part,
04:45.8
under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
04:48.1
the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such
04:53.0
as to raise a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.
04:59.2
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in that decision stated,
05:03.4
where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury
05:07.9
was under the control or management of the defendant
05:11.0
and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such
05:14.6
as in the ordinary course of things would not happen
05:17.8
if those who had its control used proper care,
05:21.1
there is reasonable evidence,
05:23.9
in the absence of explanation by the defendant,
05:26.8
that the injury arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care.
05:32.6
In simple terms po,
05:34.9
ang res ipsa loquitur ay isang doktrina ng batas
05:38.1
na ina-apply sa mga insidente o kaso ng kapabayaan
05:43.2
o negligence kung tawagin.
05:46.7
kahit na walang nakakita sa pangyayari
05:49.9
o kahit na walang direktang ebidensya na nagsasabi
05:52.9
kung sino ang may kasalanan sa nangyaring kapabayaan,
05:56.8
the presumption is that the one who is guilty of negligence
06:00.3
is the person having exclusive control of the thing
06:03.9
or instrument that caused the injury.
06:07.2
At base sa ordinaryong karanasan ng tao,
06:10.6
hindi sana magkakaroon ng pinsala
06:12.8
kung naging maingat lang ang taong may hawak ng instrumentality
06:16.7
o bagay na nagdulot ng nasabing pinsala.
06:20.9
Ito po ang elements ng res ipsa loquitur
06:23.6
as stated in the Supreme Court case of UCPB General Insurance
06:27.6
versus Pascual Liner Incorporated,
06:33.5
promulgated on April 26, 2021.
06:38.3
the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference
06:42.2
that it would not have happened except for defendant's negligence.
06:46.7
Meaning to say in Tagalog,
06:49.8
base sa kinalabasan ng aksidente,
06:52.6
hindi sana magkakaroon ng pinsala
06:55.0
kung di dahil sa kapabayaan ng defendant.
07:01.5
the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality
07:05.9
within the exclusive management or control
07:08.3
of the person accused of negligence.
07:11.7
Ibig sabihin sa Tagalog,
07:12.8
ang taong pinararatangan ng kapabayaan
07:16.7
exclusive control sa instrumento o bagay
07:20.1
na nagdulot ng pinsala.
07:22.4
And third element,
07:24.1
the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action
07:28.1
or contribution on the part of the person injured.
07:33.0
dapat walang partisipasyon
07:35.0
o hindi kagagawan mismo ng biktima
07:37.4
ang nangyaring aksidente.
07:40.4
Now to better understand what res ipsa loquitur means,
07:44.5
let us go through some examples.
07:46.7
Example of the first element.
07:48.7
Ito, may naiwan na surgical instrument sa loob ng katawan ng pasyente.
07:54.7
Here, masyadong obvious o blatant ang negligence.
07:58.7
Hindi maikakaila na ang doktor na nagperform ng surgery
08:02.7
ang siyang dapat managot sa pinsala na tinamo ng pasyente.
08:07.7
Now, let's go to the example for the second element.
08:11.7
Habang nag-aabang si Melin ng jeep pa uwi,
08:14.7
sa jeep ni staff,
08:16.2
bigla na lang siyang binangga ng minamanehong jeep ni Randy.
08:21.2
Again, obvious na obvious na si Randy ang may sala
08:25.2
dahil siya ang mayroong exclusive control sa sasakyan na kanyang minamaneho.
08:32.2
Example of the third element.
08:34.2
Same example pa din, si Meli at si Randy.
08:37.2
Makikita niyo sa example na yun na walang partisipasyon ang biktimang si Meli
08:43.2
o hindi niya kagagawan ang nangyaring aksidente
08:46.2
dahil nakatayo lamang siya sa lugar kung saan dapat siya mag-aabang ng sasakyan,
08:51.2
sa jeep ni staff.
08:53.2
So kahit na walang nakakita o walang gustong tumistigo kung gaano kabilis ang takbo ni Randy,
09:00.2
under the doctrine of res ipsa lucitor,
09:03.2
the presumption is that it was Randy's negligence that caused the injury.
09:09.2
So ganyan lang po kasimple ang ibig sabihin ng res ipsa lucitor.
09:14.2
Nag-a-apply lang po ito sa mga kaso ng kapabayaan o negligence.
09:19.2
And definitely hindi ito nag-a-apply sa isang dokumento to be used as evidence in a bigamy case.
09:27.2
So yan lang po and maraming salamat and see you in my next video.