By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
It is accounted in Matthew 28:8-15, that when the “women left the empty tomb, they met Jesus on their way…”
The event marks the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What is remarkable in this narration is how the disciples had instantly recognized Jesus even after he was supposedly buried in the tomb following his death on the cross.
The answer is because the disciples knew Jesus by following him in his lifetime.
Indeed, it begs to ask: how well do we know a person to be able to confirm and affirm his/ her identity when circumstances and events had been dire as to perhaps drastically change his/ her physical appearance?
Another question: is the opinion by an ordinary witness admissible (or acceptable) in court in regard to the identity of the person concerned?
Sec. 53, Rule 130 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC), treats of the “opinion of ordinary witnesses”, thus:
“The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding –
(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.”
Evident from par. (a) is the requirement that to attest to the “identity of a person”, one must have “adequate knowledge” of the same.
Since according to James Bradley Thayer, that “evidence is the creature of experience rather than logic”, this rule on Evidence evolved from human experience.
How well do we know people, especially those whom we love and who matter to us?
This lesson in Evidence reminds us that we must always have “adequate knowledge” of the person concerned to put us in a position to confirm his/ her “identity”.
“Identity” means the distinct personality, the endearing and quirky qualities, or, simply, everything that is good or bad in the person.
In a judgmental world, where many people seethe with prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, or misogyny, their problem lies with the “lack of adequate knowledge” of the “identity” of the person who becomes a target of their prejudice, etc.
Yet there are people whose profundity we cannot measure and their circumstances we cannot approximate.
The rule is simple: if we lack “adequate knowledge” about other people, we should refrain from “giving an opinion” on their persons or identities.
While as to people we love and care about, the rule reminds us to get to know them more. We need to know their “identities” as this would place us in a better position not only to have an opinion about them, but to love and care for them even more.
These are lessons from the Law of Evidence that resonate on Easter Sunday and vice-versa.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
