Hearsay on the Highway: When a Traffic Report Cannot Prove Fault in Damage Claims

The Supreme Court has clarified an important rule for anyone involved in a vehicular accident claim: a police traffic accident investigation report is not automatically admissible as evidence. If the investigating officer merely recorded what an eyewitness said, without personal knowledge of the incident, that report is hearsay and cannot be used to prove who was at fault. This ruling, in DST Movers Corporation v. People's General Insurance Corporation (G.R. No. 198627, January 13, 2016), has significant implications for insurance companies seeking subrogation and for parties defending against such claims.

The Facts of the Case

In February 2002, a Honda Civic sedan was allegedly hit from behind by an Isuzu Elf truck along the South Luzon Expressway. The impact pushed the sedan into a Mitsubishi Lancer. The truck driver reportedly fled the scene. The sedan was insured by People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC), which paid the owner P320,000.00 for a total loss claim.

PGIC then sued DST Movers Corporation, the truck's owner, to recover P90,000.00—the difference between the insurance payout and the salvage value. PGIC's case rested almost entirely on a Traffic Accident Investigation Report prepared by PO2 Cecilio Grospe Tomas. The report stated that the truck hit the sedan, but the officer who prepared it never testified in court. Neither did the person who actually reported the incident to the police, identified only as "G. Simbahon of PNCC/SLEX."

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether DST Movers' liability was established by a preponderance of evidence. More specifically, the Court examined whether the lower courts erred in admitting and relying on the traffic accident investigation report.

The Hearsay Rule and Its Official Records Exception

The Supreme Court reiterated the general rule: a witness can only testify to facts derived from personal knowledge. Out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matters stated are hearsay and generally inadmissible.

The Court then examined the exception for entries in official records, found in Rule 130, Section 44 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. This exception allows public officers' entries to be admitted as prima facie evidence without presenting the officer as a witness. However, the Court stressed that three requisites must be satisfied:

1. The entry was made by a public officer in the performance of official duties;
2. It was made in the performance of those duties; and
3. The public officer had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated, acquired personally or through official information.

The third requisite was fatal to PGIC's case. The report itself admitted that the facts were merely reported to PO2 Tomas by G. Simbahon. The officer had no personal knowledge of the accident. Therefore, the report failed the test for admissibility as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Why the Report Was Inadmissible

The Court emphasized that even if PO2 Tomas had testified, his testimony alone would not have been enough to identify the responsible vehicle or driver. The testimony of G. Simbahon, the actual eyewitness, was necessary. Because neither person was presented, the report remained hearsay.

The Court also addressed the argument that the case was governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, where no trial is held. It noted that under Section 9 of that rule, parties must submit affidavits of their witnesses together with their position papers. Simply attaching the report to a position paper, without an affidavit from the officer, was insufficient.

The Practical Effect

With the report excluded, PGIC had no evidence to prove that DST Movers' truck caused the damage. Notably, DST Movers presented invoices and receipts showing its truck was undergoing repairs on the date of the accident. The Court found the weight of evidence clearly favored DST Movers, reversed the lower courts' rulings, and dismissed PGIC's complaint.

Practical Takeaways

• A traffic accident report is not self-proving. For it to be admissible as an official record, the investigating officer must have personal knowledge of the facts or must have obtained them through official information. If the officer merely recorded an eyewitness's account, both the officer and the eyewitness may need to testify or provide affidavits.
• In summary procedure cases, affidavits are required. Parties cannot rely on documentary exhibits alone. Witness affidavits must be submitted with position papers to establish the facts.
• Insurance companies must prepare their evidence carefully. An insurer pursuing subrogation must present competent proof of the identity of the responsible party, not just documentation of the loss and payment.
• Defendants can challenge weak evidence. A party facing a damage claim based on a defective traffic report should move for its exclusion or argue that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proof.
• The rule applies to all civil cases. While this case involved a traffic accident, the hearsay principles apply broadly to any claim relying on official reports or records.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.