Ong Chia vs. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 127240. March, 27, 2000) People vs.
People vs. Valdez G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000
FACTS:
The trial court granted the petition and admitted petitioner to Philippine
citizenship. The State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General, among
others for having failed to state all his former placer of residence in violation of C.A.
No. 473, §7 and to support his petition with the appropriate documentary evidence.
Petitioner admits that he failed to mention said address in his petition, but argues
that since the Immigrant Certificate of Residence containing it had been fully
published, with the petition and the other annexes, such publication constitutes
substantial compliance with §7.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the documents annexed by the State to its appellant’s brief
without having been presented and formally offered as evidence under Rule 132,
Section 34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence justified the reversal of of the Trial
Court’s decision.
HELD:
YES. Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. Petition was denied.
RATIO:
It is settled that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly
construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. [T]he rule of strict
application of the law in naturalization cases defeat petitioner’s argument of
“substantial compliance” with the requirement under the Revised Naturalization
Law.
[T]he reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which has
not been formally offered is to afford the opposite party the chance to object to
their admissibility. Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the right to
object to the authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate court by the
State.
FACTS:
Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz, accused-appellant, is charged for violating Section
9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
The accused was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto and without authority of law,
planted, cultivated and cultured seven (7) fully grown marijuana plants known as
Indian Hemp from which dangerous drugs maybe manufactured or derived.
Appellant was arraigned and with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Trial on the merits then ensued.
The prosecution presented its witnesses, namely: SPO3 Marcelo Tipay,
SPO2 Noel V. Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S. Morales, SPO1 Romulo G. Tobias and PO2
Alfelmer I. Balut, all member of the police force, who testified how the information
was received, the commencement of their operation and its details under the
specific instruction of Inspector Parungao. Accordingly, they found appellant alone
in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the area where appellant had
his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows,
approximately 25 meters away from his nipa hut. PO2 Balut asked appellant who
owned the prohibited plants and, according to Balut, the latter admitted that they
were his. They uprooted the seven marijuana plants, took photos of appellant
standing beside the cannabis plants and arrested him. One of the said plants was
sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for analysis which produced
a positive result. The prosecution also presented a certification from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources that the land cultivated by
appellant where the growing marijuana plants were found, was part of the public
domain. Appellant was acknowledged in the certification as the occupant of the lot,
but no Certificate of Stewardship had yet been issued in his favor.
The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He testified he was
weeding his vegetable farm when he was called by a person whose identity he does
not know. He was asked to go with the latter to see something. This unknown
person then brought appellant to the place where the marijuana plants were found,
approximately 100 meters away from his nipa hut. Five armed policemen were
present and they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if
he knew anything about the marijuana growing there. When he denied any
knowledge thereof, SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit
ownership of the plants. Appellant was so nervous and afraid that he admitted
owning the marijuana. The police team then brought him to the police station at
Villaverde. At the police headquarters, appellant reiterated that he knew nothing
about the marijuana plants seized by the police. Appellant contends that there was
unlawful search. First, the records show that the law enforcers had more than
ample time to secure a search warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were
found in an unfenced lot does not remove appellant from the mantle of protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The right against unreasonable
1
searches and seizures is the immunity of one’s person, which includes his residence, the weakness of the evidence for the accused. Absent the required degree of proof
his papers, and other possessions. of an accused’s guilt, he is entitled to an acquittal.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in the present
case is lawful and the seized evidence admissible.
(2) Whether or not the seized plants is admissible in evidence against the accused.
(3) Whether or not the prosecution has proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
(4) Whether or not the sentence of death by lethal injection is correct.

HELD:
In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after
personal determination of the existence of probable cause given the fact that police
had ample time to obtain said warrant. The protection against illegal search and
seizure is constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches
allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights
covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law
enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.
With respect to the first issue, the confiscated plants were evidently
obtained during an illegal search and seizure. As to the second issue, which involves
the admissibility of the marijuana plants as evidence for the prosecution, the said
plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence
against appellant. They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was, therefore,
a reversible error on the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon
the seized marijuana plants as evidence to convict appellant.
In the third issue, it is fundamental in criminal prosecutions that before an
accused may be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must establish by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is the
author thereof. The evidence arrayed against the accused, however, must not only
stand the test of reason, it must likewise be credible and competent. Competent
evidence is “generally admissible” evidence. Admissible evidence, in turn, is
evidence “of such a character that the court or judge is bound to receive it, that is,
allow it to be introduced at trial. And as earlier discussed, it was error on the trial
court’s part to have admitted evidences against the accused and to have relied
upon said proofs to convict him for said evidence is doubly tainted.
In the fourth issue, the Constitution decrees that, “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”
To justify the conviction of the accused, the prosecution must adduce that quantum
of evidence sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must stand or fall on its evidence and cannot draw strength from

2
ZULUETA VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
Facts:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered
petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private respondent's
clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent.
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin.
On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of
medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's
secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took
157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his
alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport,
and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a
case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine
which petitioner had filed against her husband.
Issue: (1) Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence;
Held: (1) No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication
and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to
the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or
when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
purpose in any proceeding."
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not
shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses
by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage,
save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite
another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And
this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.
The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
People v. Ador 432 SCRA 1 June 14, 2004
Facts:
In convicting accused of murder, the trial court relied on the circumstances, namely:
1. that he was seen fleeing from the crime scene,
2. that he allegedly surrendered a handgun,
3. that the slug taken from the head of the victim was fired from the gun he
surrendered,
4. that the victim made a dying declaration identifying him, and
5. that paraffin test showed that he was positive for gun powder.
Issue: Is the conviction proper?
Held: No. For circumstantial evidence to suffice,
1. there should be more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inference are derived are proven and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the following are the guidelines in appreciating circumstantial
evidence:
1. it should be acted upon with caution;
2. all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
3. the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and
4. the facts must establish such certainty of guilt as to convince the judgment
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.
Measured against these guidelines, the conviction cannot stand for the
following reasons:
1. the testimony of the prosecution witness that he saw accused fleeing from the
crime scene is doubtful;
2. the gun surrendered by the accused does not appear to be the same gun
presented during trial;
3. if the gun is not the same, it is uncertain where the slug taken from the head of
the victim came from;
4. the dying declaration which mentioned only the "Adors" can refer to anyone with
that family name; and
5. scientific experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not
conclusive.
Plainly, the facts from which the inference that the accused committed the
crime were not proven. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused was not established
with moral certainty.
3
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ vs CA G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994
Facts:
Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with the Quezon City RTC a
complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita
Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological
incapacity of the petitioner.
Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were three (3) cassette
tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified
persons.
Teresita submitted her Objection/Comment to Rafael’s oral offer of
evidence. However, the trial court admitted all of private respondent’s offered
evidence and later on denied her motion for reconsideration, prompting petitioner
to file a petition for certiorari with the CA to assail the admission in evidence of the
aforementioned cassette tapes.
These tape recordings were made and obtained when private respondent
allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
CA denied the petition because (1) Tape recordings are not inadmissible
per se. They and any other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain
purposes, depending on how they are presented and offered and on how the trial
judge utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness and the even handed
administration of justice; and (2) A petition for certiorari is notoriously
inappropriate to rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during
trial. The ruling on admissibility is interlocutory; neither does it impinge on
jurisdiction. If it is erroneous, the ruling should be questioned in the appeal from
the judgment on the merits and not through the special civil action of certiorari. The
error, assuming gratuitously that it exists, cannot be anymore than an error of law,
properly correctible by appeal and not by certiorari.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or
by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or
however otherwise described. . . .
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information
therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations
allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
2. Yes and no. The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available
to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court. The proper remedy in such cases
is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said appeal the
grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.
However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and
the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court
may allow certiorari as a mode of redress.

Issue:
W/N the recordings of the telephone conversations are admissible in evidence
W/N the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was properly
availed of by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals

Held:
1. No. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for
other purposes” expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence
thus:
4
PEOPLE vs BACONGUIS GR No. 149889 Dec. 2, 2003 and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the
FACTS: totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the
- Appellant, Ruel Baconguis, was charged of murder for allegedly killing Roberto witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness'
Mercado. degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by
- The only witness in the crime was Lydia Mercado- Lledo, the sister of the victim. the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
- Crediting Lydia’s positive identification of appellant as the man she saw leaving her identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
house and jumping over the fence and the results of the paraffin test, the trial court (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
convicted appellant by the decision on review. The totality of circumstances test has been fashioned to assure fairness as well as
compliance with constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-
ISSUE: WON the result of the paraffin test is conclusive. court identification.[ A showup, such as what was undertaken by the police in the
identification of appellant by Lydia, has been held to be an underhanded mode of
RULING: No identification for "being pointedly suggestive, generating confidence where there
It is well settled that nitrates are also found in substances other than was none, activating visual imagination, and, all told, subverting their reliability as
gunpowder.[34]Thus, in a number of cases,32 the Court acquitted the accused an eyewitness.[29] Lydia knew that she was going to identify a suspect, whose
despite the finding of gunpowder nitrates on his hand, noting that: Scientific name had priorly been furnished by her brother-policeman, when she went to the
experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. While police station. And the police pointed appellant to her, and told her that he was the
it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it does not always suspect, while he was behind bars, alone.[30] The unusual, coarse and highly
indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by the discharge of singular method of identification, which revolts against accepted principles of
firearm. The person tested may have handled one or more of a number of scientific crime detection, alienates the esteem of every just man, and commands
substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as neither respect nor acceptance.
explosives, fireworks, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such as peas, beans,
and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on
his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of
tobacco. The presence of nitrates, therefore, should be taken only as an indication
of a possibility but not of infallibility that the person tested has fired a gun.33 In
fact, prosecution witness Police Superintendent Liza Madeja Sabong, who
conducted the paraffin test on appellant, testified that a person who fires a gun can
transfer gunpowder from his hands to someone standing very near him even if the
second person did not fire a gun himself.34
But even assuming arguendo that appellants being positive for gunpowder
may be credited as circumstantial evidence indicating his culpability, that is only
one circumstance, and since no other circumstance was established by the
prosecution, the first requirement for circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction
of appellant has not been met.
The prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of
appellant beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. Prosecution witness
Lydia identified appellant, then alone in the detention cell, and in open court as the
person she saw leaving the house. The value of the in-court identification made by
Lydia, however, is largely dependent upon the out-of-court identification she made
while appellant was in the custody of the police. In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,[19] this
Court held that corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity
of in-court identification during the trial of the case. In resolving the admissibility of
5
PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)
FACTS:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s (Isabel
Dawang’s) house, despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other
former’s housemate-relatives left in the morning. At 10:00 am, accused-appellant
Joel Yatar was seen at the back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during
said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw Yatar, who was then
wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants, descended from the second floor
and was pacing back and forth at the back of Isabel Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t
find this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar
called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would not be getting the lumber he
had been gathering. This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black
shirt (without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the latter’s eyes were
“reddish and sharp”. Accused-appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyn’s
husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar immediately left
when Judilyn’s husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home,
she found the lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened,
and the containers, which she asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon
ascending the second floor to check whether the teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel
found that the door therein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded opening the
tied door with a knife, and as she groped in the darkness of the second level of her
house, she felt Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines protruding
out from it. Soon after, police came to the scene of the crime to provide assistance.
Therein, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments beside her body.
Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-
meters away from Isabel’s house. Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon
examination of Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results
showed that the DNA comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatar’s
genotype. Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide
and was convicted for the same by the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga.
Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail
the court a quo’s decision. On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in
giving much weight to the evidence DNA testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of
the seminal fluid found inside the victim’s (cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the blood
sample taken from is violative of his constitutional right against self-incrimination;
and the conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-post
facto laws.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen
may be used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction?
HELD:
Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3)
years before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of Daubert vs.
Merrell Dow as a precedent. In the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that
pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used, so long as
the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was called then as the DAUBERT
TEST.
RULE:
At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis.
Sec. 7 of the Rules on DNA evidence, which took effect on 2007, provides for the
factors to be considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be given on
evidence derived or generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are, to wit:
(a)The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how
they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with
the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If
the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in
forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
APPLICATION– DAUBERT TEST:
The Honorable Supreme Court in this case upheld the probative value of
the DNA test result yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s blood sample from that of
the semen specimen obtained from the cadaver’s vaginal canal. Accordingly, it held
that the DNA evidence is both reliable and relevant.
In ascertaining the relevance of the evidence in a case, it must be
determined whether or not the same directly relates to a fact in issue, as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. In this case, the evidence is relevant in
determining the perpetrator of the crime;
In giving probative value on the DNA testing result, yielded from the
analysis of Yatar‘s blood sample from that of the biological sample (semen)
obtained from the victim‘s vaginal canal, the trial court considered the qualification
of the DNA analyst, the facility or laboratory in which the DNA testing had been
performed, and the methodology used in performing the DNA test. In the said case,
the DNA test was done at the UP National Science Research Institute (NSRI). The
method used was Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short
6
Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, which enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence to be
replicated exponentially in a span of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA analysis may
be made easier even with small DNA samples at hand. The analyst who performed PEOPLE vs TUMIMPAD GR No. 109144 August 19, 1994
the procedure was Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria, who is a duly qualified FACTS:
expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. - Accused-appellant, Moreno Tumimpad, was charged and found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
CONCLUSION: - He allegedly rape Sandra Salcedo, a 15-year old mongoloid child.
Hence, apart from the other sets of circumstantial evidence correctly - The trial court convicted Tumimpad of the crime basing its decision on the results
appreciated by the trial court, the said DNA evidence is sufficient to be admitted as of the "Major Blood Grouping Test" and "Pheno Blood Typing" conducted on the 2
evidence to warrant the accused-appellant’s conviction of the crime of Rape with accused and the victim.
Homicide. - The result showed that Tumimpad had the same blood type with the child
conceived by the victim.
ANNOTATIONS
WHAT IS DNA? – culled from this case ISSUE:
WON the lower court erred in convicting Tumimpad based on the result of
DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living
the blood test. What is the value of the blood test as evidence.
organisms.23 A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change
throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA
RULING: No
found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine,
Accused-appellants' culpability was established mainly by testimonial
skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells.24 Most importantly, because of
evidence given by the victim herself and her relatives. The blood test was adduced
polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA,
as evidence only to show that the alleged father or any one of many others of the
with the notable exception of identical twins;
same blood type may have been the father of the child. As held by this Court in
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely
Janice Marie Jao vs. Court of Appeals 19: Paternity — Science has demonstrated
effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused
that by the analysis of blood samples of the mother, the child, and the alleged
suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of criminal
father, it can be established conclusively that the man is not the father of a
investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and
particular child. But group blood testing cannot show only a possibility that he is.
exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account
Statutes in many states, and courts in others, have recognized the value and the
of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing
limitations of such tests. Some of the decisions have recognized the conclusive
the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in
presumption of non-paternity where the results of the test, made in the prescribed
every case.
manner, show the impossibility of the alleged paternity. This is one of the few cases
DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or
in which the judgment of the Court may scientifically be completely accurate, and
eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used.26
intolerable results avoided, such as have occurred where the finding is allowed to
Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin
turn on oral testimony conflicting with the results of the test. The findings of such
tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be left on the victim’s body or at the crime
blood tests are not admissible to prove the fact of paternity as they show only a
scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be
possibility that the alleged father or any one of many others with the same blood
transferred to the victim’s body during the assault.27 Forensic DNA evidence is
type may have been the father of the child.
helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a
victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant, DNA can be
compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.

7

PEOPLE vs. JOEL SARTAGODA y BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUÑA y LAZARTE,
VICENTESTA. ANA y GUTIERREZ and JOHN DOE G.R. No. 97525. April 7, 1993
FACTS:
It was the evening of July 2, 1988 while Rogelio de Belen, his two
daughters and his sister Vilma de Belen were sleeping in their house at Calamba,
Laguna, when appellant broke in and woke him up, poking a knife at him. They tied
up his hands and made him lie flat on his stomach and asked for the key to his
cabinet. Fearing for his life and that of his companions, he reluctantly told them
where the key was kept. Just on the other room was Vilma, who heard whispers
(kaluskos) but simply played possum. When the three saw her on the bed, they
approached her. One covered her mouth as another poked a knife at her neck. They
threatened to kill her if she should make an outcry and successively raped her. After
the three men left, Rogelio, with his hands and feet still tied up, tried to get up from
the bed and switched the lights on and called to his neighbors for help. Vilma,
meanwhile, had lost consciousness due to shock. The Regional Trial Court, Fourth
Judicial Region, Branch 36, Calamba, Laguna convicted all three accused-appellants
in its decision. The accused-appellants fault the trial court of ignoring the fingerprint
examination report submitted by the Crime Laboratory of the PC/INP Camp Crame
which stated that none of the specimen latent fingerprints were found to be
positive. It is their contention that since their finger print were not found in the
objects found in the scene of the crime they cannot be held guilty of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE: WON accused are guilty in spite of the report made by the PNP Laboratory.
HELD: Yes, the accused are still guilty. Although the Court agrees with their opinion
that a positive finding of matching fingerprints has great significance, it cannot
sustain their theory that from the negative findings in the fingerprint examination
conducted in the course of the investigation in the instant case, it must be
concluded that they could not have been at the scene of the crime. Negative
findings do not at all times lead to a valid conclusion for there may be logical
explanations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than their not being
present at the scene of the crime. Only latent fingerprints found on smooth surface
are useful for purposes of comparison in a crime laboratory because prints left on
rough surfaces result in dotted lines or broken lines instead of complete and
continuous lines. Such kind of specimen cannot be relied upon in a fingerprint
examination. Noting the interplay of many circumstances involved in the successful
lifting and identification of proper latent fingerprints in a particular crime scene, the
absence of one does not immediately eliminate the possibility that the accused-
appellants could have been at the scene of the crime. They may be there yet they
had not left any identifiable latent fingerprint. Besides, in the case at bar, only ten
latent fingerprints are involved. The findings in this particular fingerprint
examination are not sufficient to case even just a reasonable doubt in their finding
of guilt for the crime charged.
PEOPLE vs CARPO GR No. 132676 April 4, 2001
FACTS:
- Accused-appellants were convicted by the trial court of multiple murder
complexed with attempted murder for the death of Florentino, Norwela, Nissan and
Noemi Dulay.
- They allegedly caused the explosion in the house of the victims by means of a
hand grenade.
- After conviction, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic
review.
- After the filing of briefs, the accused filed an Addendum to Appellant's Brief urging
that the favorable results of their lie detector tests with the NBI be admitted into
the records.
- The lie detector reports state that when accused-appellants answered NO to a
series of questions related to the incident the polygrams revealed (they had) no
specific reactions indicative (of) deception.
ISSUE:
WON the accused-appellants should be acquitted based on the poygrams.
RULING: No
A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo
physiological changes, capable of being monitored by sensors attached to his body,
when he is not telling the truth. The Court does not put credit and faith on the
result of a lie detector test inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the scientific
community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.
8