Dear PAO,
I was stabbed in a fight. I am worried since I cannot present, as a witness, the physician who examined me since he has been reassigned elsewhere. The investigating officers told me not to worry because the medical certificate is enough to prove that my wound was fatal and that it would support the filing of a grave offense. However, another officer claimed otherwise. Is it really essential for the medico-legal officer who examined me to testify in court? Suppose the physician will not testify; is the medical certificate he issued sufficient to prove that my wound was fatal?
Benandben
Dear Benandben,
There is no other person who can testify as to the nature of the injury except the physician who attended to the wound of the victim or the one who issued the medico-legal certificate. This testimony of the physician is referred to as opinion of an expert witness, which is governed by Section 52, Rule 130 of AM 19-08-15-SC or the 2019 Proposed Amendments To The Revised Rules On Evidence, viz.:
“The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, which he or she is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.”
The extent and gravity of the wounds sustained in a stabbing incident may be proven by the prosecution through the testimony of a physician who must be established as an expert witness and not through the medical certificate. This finds support in Solis v. People of the Philippines, GR 255485, Nov. 26, 2025, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, stated that:
“Unlike in a prosecution for rape, where medical examination is not indispensable since the lone testimony of the victim is sufficient if credible, it is imperative in a prosecution for frustrated homicide that the victim’s wounds be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be fatal through the testimony of the physician who attended to said fatal wounds. Since a medical certificate is merely an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it could not be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show their qualifications. Failure to present the physician who attended the wounds deprives the defense of an opportunity to cross-examine them on the accuracy and veracity of their findings.
“In Etino v. People, We had the occasion to discuss the probative value of a medical certificate sans the testimony of the attending physician:
“It is settled that ‘where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful,’ and such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.” (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the extent of the wound that you sustained must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the physician. The purpose of having the examining physician present in court is to show his/her qualifications as an expert witness and for the defense to have an opportunity to cross-examine him/her on the accuracy and veracity of his/her findings. If the physician will not testify in court, the medical certificate is insufficient to prove the extent or nature of the injury sustained by the victim, which will create doubt and tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
