49) G.R. No.

150224

May 19, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT", appellant.
FACTS:
Joel Yatar (appellant) was charge with rape with homicide for allegedly raping and
killing Kathlyn Uba. It was alleged in the information that; On June 30, 1998, at 8:30
a.m., Judilyn Pas-a and her first cousin, seventeen year old Kathylyn Uba, were on
the ground floor of the house of their grandmother, Isabel Dawang, in Liwan West,
Rizal, Kalinga. At 9:00 a.m. of the same day, Judilyn and her husband, together with
Isabel Dawang, left for their farm in Nagbitayan some two kilometers away.
Kathylyn was left alone in the house. Later, at 10:00 a.m., Anita Wania and fifteen
year old Beverly Deneng stopped by the house of Isabel. They saw appellant at the
back of the house. They went inside the house through the back door of the kitchen
to have a drink of water. Anita asked appellant what he was doing there, and he
replied that he was getting lumber to bring to the house of his mother. At 12:30
p.m., while Judilyn was on her way home from Nagbitayan, she saw appellant
descend the ladder from the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang and run
towards the back of the house. She also noticed that the appellant was then
wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants. At 1:30 p.m., Judilyn again saw
appellant when he called her near her house. This time, he was wearing a black
shirt without collar and blue pants. In the evening of the same day, Isabel Dawang
arrived home and found that the lights in her house were off.She went up the ladder
to the second floor of the house to see if Kathylyn was upstairs. She found that the
door was tied with a rope, so she went down to get a knife. While she groped in the
dark, she felt a lifeless body that was cold and rigid. Police officers went to the
house and found the naked body of Kathylyn Uba with multiple stab wounds. The
people in the vicinity informed the police officers that appellant was seen going
down the ladder of the house of Isabel Dawang at approximately 12:30 p.m. The
police discovered the victims panties, brassiere, denim pants, bag and sandals
beside her naked cadaver at the scene of the crime, and they found a dirty white
shirt splattered with blood within 50 meters from the house of Isabel. Appellant was
questioned and put under custody. Appellant escaped two days after he was
detained but was subsequently apprehended. Further medical examination revealed
that the victims vaginal canal has semen. Such excretion was subjected to DNA
testing and matched the appellants blood sample. Thus, further strengthening the
case against the appellant. The RTC ruled against the appellant sentencing the
latter to death. Thus, raising this case before the Court by an automatic appeal.
Among the raised contentions of the appellant is the doubtfulness of the evidence
presented against him. Alleging among others the probative value of the DNA

evidence presented and that that the blood sample taken from him as well as the
DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his
right against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.
Likewise, that the DNA tests conducted by the prosecution against him are
unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application
of an ex-post facto law.
ISSUE:
WON appellant is guilty of the crime charged
HELD: YES
A)Probative value of the DNA evidence;
In admitting that integration of DNA Testing in the Philippine justice system is a
relatively new process, the Court based its ruling in a known U.S Doctrine
pronounced in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow. In this foreign case it was ruled
that "pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as
long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater
discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, including the introduction
of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure."
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Applying the Daubert test to
the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through Polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) testing and utilizing Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, and which was
appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based
on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology.
B) Blood sample taken from the appellant as well as the DNA tests conducted were
not in violation of appellant's right to remain silent as well as the latter's right
against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.
The Court in this respect reiterated that "The kernel of these rights are not against
all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against selfincrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be
excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence." "Hence, a person
may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and
DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved."
"It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself for blood
sampling which was conducted in open court on March 30, 2000, in the presence of
counsel."
C) Conducted DNA Test, not an application of a ex post facto law

"This argument is specious. No ex-post facto law is involved in the case at bar. The
science of DNA typing involves the admissibility, relevance and reliability of the
evidence obtained under the Rules of Court. Whereas an ex-post facto law refers
primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the
probative weight of the evidence presented."

50) G.R. No. 144656. May 9, 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRICO VALLEJO
Y SAMARTINO y PUKE, accused-appellant.
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide for
allegedly raping and killing a 9-year old girl named Daisy Diolola. According to
witnesses' testimonies the victim was last seen with the accused-appellant.
Thereafter, Daisys body was found tied to an aroma tree at the part of the river near
the compuerta. During the initial investigation, accused-appellant had scratches on
his feet similar to those caused by the thorns of an aroma tree. The clothes which
accused-appellant wore the day before were bloodstained. The bloodstains on
accused-appellants clothes and on Daisys clothes were found positive of human
blood type A. In the same analysis it turned out that accused-appellant's blood type
is O. Aside from blood sampling, investigators likewise conducted vaginal swabbing.
Further examination revealed that the vaginal swabs from Daisys body contained
her DNA profile as well as that of accused-appellant. Furthermore, also presented as
evidence are the alleged oral confession and a written extrajudicial confession by
the accused. The RTC convicted Vallejo of the crime rape with homicide, sentencing
him to death. Thus this automatic review before the Supreme Court.
Accused-appellant raised questions as to the strength and admissibility of the
prosecution's evidence. The accused-appellant argued among others the following
questions (i) that the circumstancialevidence presented were weak; (ii) that the
bloodstains found on his garments were not proven to have been that of the victim
as the victims blood type was not determined; (iii) that the prosecution failed to
show that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated,
considering that these specimens were already soaked in smirchy waters before
they were submitted to the laboratory.

ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty as charged

HELD: YES
A) Strength of the evidence presented:
(i) Circumstancial evidence, when sufficient to support conviction:

The Court ruled that in rape with homicide, the evidence against an accused is
more often than not circumstantial. This is because the nature of the crime, where
only the victim and the rapist would have been present at the time of its
commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult since the
victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator.
Under Rule 133, section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, circumstantial evidence
is sufficient to sustain a conviction if:
(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
In the case at bar, the following circumstantial evidence establish beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant.
1. The victim went to Aimee Vallejos house, where accused-appellant was residing,
at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon of July 10, 1999, for tutoring. 2. At around 2:00
oclock in the afternoon, accused-appellant and Daisy went together to the latters
house to get a book from which the former could copy Daisys school project. After
getting the book, they proceeded to accused-appellants residence. 3. From accusedappellants house, Daisy then went to the house of Jessiemin Mataverde where she
watched television. Accused-appellant thereafter arrived and whispered something
to Daisy, and the latter went with him towards the compuerta. 4. At about 4:30
oclock in the afternoon, the spouses Iluminado and Charito Yepes saw accusedappellant coming out of the compuerta, with his clothes, basketball shorts, and tshirt wet, although his face and hair were not. According to these witnesses, he
looked pale, uneasy, and troubled (balisa). He kept looking around and did not even
greet them as was his custom to do so. 5. The fishing boat which accused-appellant
used as a bomber (a boat for catching fish with dynamite) was docked by the
seashore. 6. A little before 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, Jessiemin Mataverde also
saw accused-appellant buying a Marlboro cigarette from a store. Jessiemen also
noticed that accused-appellants clothes were wet but not his face nor his hair. 7. By
5:30 oclock in the afternoon, as Ma. Nida Diolola looked for her daughter, she was
told by accused-appellant that Daisy had gone to her classmate Rosarios house. The
information proved to be false. 8. Daisys body was found tied to an aroma tree at
the part of the river near the compuerta. 9. During the initial investigation, accusedappellant had scratches on his feet similar to those caused by the thorns of an
aroma tree. 10. The clothes which accused-appellant wore the day before were
bloodstained. The bloodstains on accused-appellants clothes and on Daisys clothes
were found positive of human blood type A. 11. Accused-appellant has blood type O.
12. The vaginal swabs from Daisys body contained her DNA profile as well as that of
accused-appellant.

(ii) Failure to specify the victim's blood type is irrelevant

In this respect the Court empnasized that the examination conducted by Forensic
Biologist Pet Byron Buan of both accused-appellants and the victims clothing
yielded bloodstains of the same blood type A. Even if there was no direct
determination as to what blood type the victim had, it can reasonably be inferred
that the victim was blood type A since she sustained contused abrasions all over her
body which would necessarily produce the bloodstains on her clothing.
(iii) Probative value of the DNA evidence presented
The Court in this respect reiterated that in assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence, the courts should consider, among other things, the following data: how
the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination
of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
In the present case, the bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of
accused-appellant, the smears taken from the victim as well as the strands of hair
and nails taken from her tested negative for the presence of human DNA, only the
vaginal swab produced positive result for human DNA. According to the accusedappellant such inconsistent results prove contamination of the subject specimen,
thus rendering them not reliable as evidence. However, the Court still did not favor
accused-appellants contention, rather, the Court chose to give more credit to the
testimony of expert witnesses. The expert witness stated that the state of the
specimens prior to the DNA analysis could have hampered the preservation of any
DNA that could have been there before. Emphasizing that these specimens were
soaked in smirchy water before they were submitted to the laboratory. The Court
therefore concluded that it is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for
examination, and not the possibility that the samples had been contaminated,
which accounted for the negative results of their examination. This conclusion
preserved the credibility of the positive result of the vaginal swab.
In conclusion, the Court hold that the totality of the evidence points to no other
conclusion than that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Evidence is
weighed not counted. When facts or circumstances which are proved are not only
consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence,
such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may surpass direct evidence in its
effect upon the court. This is how it is in this case.

51) Torres vs PAGCOR, December 14, 2011, Gr. No. 193531

FACTS:

Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) of respondent

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). On the basis of an
alleged intelligence report of padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot
machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, then Casino Filipino-Hyatt (CF Hyatt), which
involved the slot machine and internal security personnel of respondent PAGCOR,
and in connivance with slot machine customers, respondent PAGCOR's Corporate
Investigation Unit (CIU) allegedly conducted an investigation to verify the veracity of
such report. The CIU discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was committed
by adding zero after the first digit of the actual CMR of a slot machine or adding a
digit before the first digit of the actual CMR. Thus, on May 4, 2007, the CIU served
petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud
and violation of office rules and regulations which were considered grave offenses
where the penalty imposable is dismissal. On the same day, another Memorandum
of Charges[9] signed by Rogelio Y. Bangsil, Jr., Senior Branch Manager, CF Hyatt
Manila, was issued to petitioner informing him of the charge of dishonesty (padding
of anomalous SM jackpot receipts). Petitioner was then required to explain in writing
within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof why he should not be sanctioned
or dismissed. On May 7, 2007, petitioner wrote Manager Bangsil a letter
explanation/refutation[10] of the charges against him. On August 4, 2007, petitioner
received a letter[11] dated August 2, 2007 from Atty. Lizette F. Mortel, Managing
Head of PAGCOR's Human Resource and Development Department, dismissing him
from the service. On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed with the CSC a Complaint
against PAGCOR and its Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal dismissal, non-payment
of backwages and other benefits, he alleged among others that xxx (3) that he tried
to persuade respondent PAGCOR to review and reverse its decision in a letter of
reconsideration dated August 13, 2007 addressed to the Chairman, the members of
the Board of Directors and the Merit Systems Protection Board; (4) that no
resolution was issued on his letter reconsideration, thus, the filing of the complaint.
xxx the said letter was sent through facsimile. PAGCOR denied aid contention. SCS,
ruled against herein petitioner. The CA affirmed said ruling and stated that such
facsimile transmission is inadmissible as electronic evidence under the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000.
ISSUE
WON transmission through facsmile is a valid form of filing the subject motion for
reconsideration.
HELD
NO. The Court stated that under Section 39 of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service "When deemed filed. - A motion for
reconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the
postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case and in
case of personal delivery, the date stamped thereon by the proper office." Thus the

Court concluded that motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or
personal delivery. Therefore, "even assuming arguendo that petitioner indeed
submitted a letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile
transmission, such letter reconsideration did not toll the period to appeal. The mode
used by petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As stated earlier, the motion for
reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by mail or personal delivery."
Furthermore the Court reemphasized that a facsimile is not a genuine and authentic
pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original.
Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the
facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party
and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.
In further strengthening its conclusion the Court reiterated its prior pronouncement,
satating that "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined
under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile
transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as
electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.