-->
Home » post

X-Ray Technologist Board Exam Result July 2015x-ray

On
x-ray technologist board exam result


The result of the July 2015 X-Ray Technologist Board Exam has
been released.


The X-Ray Technologist Board Exam 1st Placer is Joyce Tierra
Hilado. She has a passing percentage of 85.25%. She is a
graduate of Wesleyan University in Cabanatuan City.


The Following are the names of those who passed the July 2015
X-Ray technologist Board Examination.

1.  ABBACAN, BABYLYN QUEZON
2.  ABDURAJIK, CYNDI BAGTASOS
3.  ABULKHAIR, ASNIAH LAWANSA
4.  AGUSTIN, CATHERINE MAMARIL
5.  AKIL, ANNABELLE SAYADI
6.  ALVESTER, JETHRO NEIL ROBLES
7.  ANIB, MICHELLE ANN JARO
8.  ARIS, RACHA RAFIK ALLIAN
9.  ARREOLA, KEVIN KAREM VILLAFLOR
10. BADAYOS, NEYGIE ABUCION
11. BALINTAG, RAMON JR DELA CRUZ
12. BERNARDINO, ALBERT NIÑO
13. BERNARDO, BASIL BRICE GAGARRA
14. BURTON, JANINE GRACE ABALIN
15. BUSIL, KENNETH CHARLES ASUNCION
16. CARIAS, KAY SALINE YANIG
17. CASAN, NORONISAH COMARADANG
18. CELO, GOLD JADE MANAJERO
19. COLLADO, JOHN PAUL YASAY
20. CORTEZ, JEZIEL INFANTE
21. CRUZ, KRISTINE JOY ANNE CRUZ
22. CUARIO, BENJ ERROL JOHN EPHRAIM FAJARDO
23. DELA CRUZ, DANICA JEAN VARGAS
24. EVANGELIO, RENALOU TAHUM
25. FAREN, RICA JOY DOMINGO
26. GAITOS, JEVON SION
27. HAYAD, AMINA MADISA
28. HILADO, JOYCE TIERRA
29. IGNACIO, PATRICK KYLE CALING
30. ISIP, IRA JONATHAN ASPRER
31. JUHAN, ALFAISAL ELANG
32. JUKNI, SITTI RASIDA SAADA
33. LEGANDEN, SANTY DATO-ON
34. LUGTU, ROSE ANNE MOLINA
35. MAGDALAS, JANICE GUIAWAN
36. MARCELINO, WILMAORPIANO
37. MATA, JESUS FAJARDO
38. MEDRANO, JAY LORD ELUMBA
39. MOHAMMAD, SONNY PALSON ADALID
40. MOHAMMAD ALI, AMERAH SAAD
41. NUEVO, JOHARE GUINANG
42. PACINO, GRETCHEN LINDA
43. PAJARILLAGA, MAMETH FACTOR
44. PARAGAS, MARJORIE CUEVAS
45. PASCUAL, IDA MARIE APRIL JARAVATA
46. RILLO, KRIZZA FAYE GEVERO
47. SAID, RAHIMA HASICUM
48. SAN PEDRO, GIA KRISTINE RAE SANTIAGO
49. SANGALANG, LEONORA DE GUZMAN
50. SIMBULAN, MICHAEL ANGELO CORPUZ
51. SUSA, RONNIE YAP
52. VALENTON, CHE ANN PASCUA
53. VALENZONA, DARREL ERIC GODOY 

Radiologic Technologist Board Exam Result July 2015

On
radiologic technologist board exam result


The result of the July 2015 Radiologic Technologist has been' released.


July 2019 Results


Click here to view the complete names of those who passed.



3,043 took the exam but only 1.325 passed.


Saint Louis University in Baguio City is the No.1 Radiologic
Technologist school. It has a passing percentage of 86.54%.
52 of its students took the examination and only 7 failed.


Patrick Deompoc Agaloos is the exam's 1st Placer. He is a
graduate of St. Jude College - Dasmarinas Cavite Inc. He has
a board rating of 89.60%.


The Radiologic Technologist Board Exam was given in the
following Cities:
1. Manila,
2. Davao
3. Iloilo
4. Tuguegarao


The following are the members of the Board of Radiologic
Technology w ho gave the licensure examinations:
1.  Mr. Reynaldo Apolonio S. Tisado, Officer-In-Charge
2.  Dr. Orestes P. Monzon, Member
3.  Mr. Bayani C. San Juan, Member
4.  Ms. Ma. Jesette B. Canales, Member

Opinion Of Ordinary Witness

On



Ordinary Opinion Evidence
that which is given by a witness who is of ordinary capacity
and who has by opportunity acquired a particular knowledge which
is outside the limits of common observation and which may be of
value in elucidating a matter under consideration.


Ordinary witness: 
If proper basis is given, and regarding: (Rule 130, Sec.50)
1. Identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
2. Handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity
3. Mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
   acquainted
4. Impressions of the emotion/behavior/condition/appearance of
   a person.


Bar Exam 2004
Hearsay Evidence vs. Opinion Evidence
Hearsay evidence and opinion evidence.

Suggested Answer:
Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based on
personal knowledge of the person testifying,(see Sec.36,Rule 130)

While opinion evidence is expert evidence based on the personal
knowledge skill, experience or training of the person testifying
and evidence of an ordinary witness on limited matters.

Opinion Of Expert Witnesses

On



Expert Witness
one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject
matter of the inquiry relates to and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion.


There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill
or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as
an expert.


It is sufficient that the following factors are
present:
1. Training and education
2. Particular, first hand familiarity with the facts of the case
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion
   is based.


An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand
knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical questions
where the facts are presented to him and on the assumption that
they are true, formulates his opinion on the hypothesis.


Expert evidence is admissible only if:
1. the matter to be testified requires expertise and
2. The witness has been qualified as an expert.


How to present an expert witness
1. Introduce and qualify the witness;
2. Let him give his factual testimony, if he has knowledge of the
   facts
3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to assume certain
   facts as true
4. Conclude the question, by first asking the expert if he has an
   opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true
   and secondly, asking him, after he has answered affirmatively,
   to give his opinion on the point
5. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to give his reasons.


Hypothetical questions may be asked on an expert to elicit his
opinion. Courts, however, are NOT necessarily bound by the expert’s
findings.


What is the nature of expert opinions?
Suggested Answer:
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that
they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony,
but are generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts may place
whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it,
if they find that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case
or otherwise unreasonable.(Punzalan v. Commission on Elections,
et al., G.R. No. 126669; Meneses v. Commission on Elections, et al.,
G.R. No. 127900; Punzalan v. Commission on Elections et al.,
G.R. No. 12880; and Punzalan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
132435 prom. April 27, 1998 citing Francisco on Evidence, Vol.
VII, Part 1, p. 662)


Testimony of handwriting expert not indispensable to COMELEC.
Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable
in examining or comparing handwriting; this can be done by the
COMELEC itself. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that evidence
aliunde is not allowed to prove that a ballot is marked, an
inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient.

Opinion Rule

On


Opinion
an inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed.


General Rule
Witnesses must give the facts and not their inference, conclusions,
or opinions.


The opinion of a witness is not admissible.


Exceptions

   Expert Witness
1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill, experience or
   training which he is shown to possess

   Ordinary Witness
2. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
3. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity
4. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
   acquainted
5. The witness impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition,
   or appearance of a person


People vs. Adoviso (1999)
Polygraph test has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a
reliable and accurate means of
ascertaining truth or deception.


Dilag Co. v. Merced (1949)
There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which
skill/experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and
training are not always essential to the competency of a witness
as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable
than that acquired by study.


Bar Exam 1994
At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug,
known as “shabu:, his girlfriend Kim, testified that on a
particular day, he would see Nolan very prim and proper, alert
and sharp, but that three days after, he would appear haggard,
tired and overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear.
Nolan objects to the admissibility of Kim’s testimony on the
ground that Kim merely stated her opinion without having been
first qualified as expert witness. Should you, as judge,
exclude the testimony of Kim?


Suggested Answer
No. The testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even though
Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify on her
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person.

Testimony Or Deposition At A Former Proceeding

On



Prior Testimony


Requisites
1. The testimony or depositions of a witness deceased or unable
   to testify
2. The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial
   or administrative
3. Involving the same parties
4. Relating to the subject matter
5. The adverse party having had an opportunity to cross-examine him.


The prior testimony must have been made by a witness deceased or
unable to testify, in a former case/proceeding (judicial or
administrative) involving the same parties and subject matter.


Unable To Testify
An inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to
death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of
speech.(Tan v. CA (1967)


The prior testimony may be given in evidence against the adverse
party who had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Learned Treatises

On
learned treatises


In order that a published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet on a
subject of law, history, science, or art may be admissible, it
is necessary either:
1. That the court can take judicial notice of it  or
2. A witness expert on the subject testifies that the writer of
   the statement in the treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is
   recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
   subject.


Reasons for admission
1. Necessity – even if such person is legally procurable, the
   expense is frequently disproportionate.
2. Trustworthiness – learned writers have no motive to misrepresent.
   He is aware that his work will be carefully scrutinized by the
   learned members of his profession and that he may be subject
   to criticisms and ultimately rejected as an authority of the
   subject matter if his conclusions are found to be invalid.


A published treatise/periodical/pamphlet on a subject of
history/law/science/art is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of a matter stated therein, if the court takes judicial
notice or a witness expert in the subject testifies that the
writer of the statement in the treatise/periodical/pamphlet is
recognized in his profession/calling as expert in the subject.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)