Ong Chia v RP

FACTS:
Ong Chia
o born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China
o Arrived in Manila Manila on board the vessel Angking
o Since then, he stayed in the Philippines where he found employment,
started his own business, married and had 4 children
o At age 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a Filipino citizen
under the Revised Naturalization Law
Prosecutor Moran
o Convinced that Chia really deserves to be admitted as citizen
o Did not present any evidence to counteract or refute Chias testimony
Trial court granted Chias petition and admitted him to Philippine citizenship
SolGen appealed
o He failed to state all the names by which he is or had been known
Loreto Chia Ong
o Chia failed to state all his former place of residence
J.M. Basa Street, Iloilo
o He failed to conduct himself in proper and irreproachable manner
He lived with his wife without the benefit of marriage from 1953-
1977
They were married in church by 1977
o No known lucrative trade or occupation and his previous incomes have
been insufficient or misdeclare
his income tax returns show that his net income could hardly
support himself and his family
o Failed to support his petition with evidence
CA
o Reversed the trial courts grant

ISSUE
WON the CA erred in considering the documents which had merely been annexed
by the State to its appellant's brief and, on the basis of which, justified the reversal
of the trial court's decision it was not formally offered as evidence

HELD
No
Rule 143 of the ROC do not apply to:
o Cadastral
o Land registration
o Election cases
o Naturalization
o Insolvency proceedings
o and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient
The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by
petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for
naturalization
The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in
such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient.
A final favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later on moving for a
revocation of the grant of naturalization on the basis of the same documents.
the Court notes that these documents namely, the petition in SCN Case No.
031767, petitioner's marriage contract, the joint affidavit executed by him and his
wife, and petitioner's income tax returns are all public documents executed
under oath
Re: failure to include the address "J.M. Basa St., Iloilo" in his petition
o Petitioner argues that since the Immigrant Certificate of Residence
containing it had been fully published, 19 with the petition and the other
annexes, such publication constitutes substantial compliance
o It is settle, however, that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and
strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant
o C.A. No. 473, 7 clearly provides that the applicant for naturalization shall
set forth in the petition his present and former places of residence. 23 This
provision and the 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

People v Valdez

FACTS
Valdez
o Found guilty for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act by the RTC
plant, cultivate and culture seven (7) fully grown marijuana plants
known as Indian Hemp
o sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection
o pleaded not guilty
Witness #1
o SPO3 Marcelo Tipay
he received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence
of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by appellant at Sitio
Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya.
The police team to which he was a part 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 from appellant's hut
Allegedly, accused admitted that he owns the plants
Police uprooted the marijuana plants which weighed 2.194 kg
Photos of appellant standing beside the cannabis plants were
taken
One of the plants were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
analysis
The analyst testified that said plant was marijuana
The lot where the plants were gathered were part of the public domain as per
DENR
o Appellant was acknowledged in the certification as the occupant of the lot,
but no certificate of Stweardship had yet been issued in his favor
Defenses sole witness
o Defendant
While he was weeding his vegetable farm, a person called him
out to go with him and see something
The said unknown person brought appellant to the place where
the marijuana plants were found, approximately 100 meters away
from his nipa hut
When he denied any knowledge thereof, SPO2 Libunao poked a
fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants
Police took a photo of him standing in front of one of the plants
He was then made to uproot five of the cannabis plants, and
bring them to his hut, where another photo was taken of him
standing next to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants
Appellant declared that there were ten other houses around the
vicinity of his kaingin, the nearest house being 100 meters away
owned by Carlito Pascua, uncle of Kiko Pascua. Kiko was a
peace officer of the barangay who bore grudege against
defendant after the latter refused to participate in his illegal
logging activities
Tipay stated that his basis for claiming that appellant was the owner or planter of
the seized plants was the information given him by the police informer and the
proximity of appellant's hut to the location of said plants
Trial court held appellant liable

ISSUE
Was the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in the present case lawful?
Were the seized plants admissible in evidence against the accused?

HELD
No.
The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be
carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is
deemed "unreasonable."
Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
excluded.
Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence
of probable cause
The police had 1 day to obtain a warrant to search appellants farm
Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the excuse that
the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them
Plain view doctrine cannot apply
Plain view doctrine
o (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
o (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the
right to be where they are; and
o (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
o (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search

o Police first located the marijuana plants before appellant was arrested
without a warrant
o Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search
of appellant's premises
o The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently
comes across an incriminating object

ISSUE:
Having declared the seized marijuana plants inadmissible in evidence against
appellant, we must now address the question of whether the remaining evidence
for the prosecution suffices to convict appellant?

HELD:
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right:
o (1) to remain silent;
o (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice; and
o (3) to be informed of such rights
o These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel
An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but starts to focus on
a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator starts
interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an
alleged offense.
One of the police said
o we just asked him and I think there is no need to inform (him of) his
constitutional rights because we are just asking him
In trying to elicit information from appellant, the police was already investigating
appellant as a suspect. At this point, he was already under custodial investigation
and had a right to counsel even if he had not yet been arrested.
Custodial investigation
o Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way
For a confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements:
o (1) it must be voluntary;
o (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel;
o (3) it must be express; and
o (4) it must be in writing
Appellants admission was:
o Verbal
o Made without a counsel
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

Zulueta v CA

FACTS
Cecilia Zulueta
o wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin
o entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the
presence of her mother, a driver and private respondents secretary,
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husbands clinic and took
157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin
and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martins passport, and photographs
o 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.
Dr. Martin brought this action for recovery of the documents and papers and for
damages against petitioner
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Dr. Martin
o He is the capital/exclusive owner of the properties
o Zulueta to return the properties of Martin and to pay him for damages
CA affirmed RTCs decision

ISSUE
WON the admissibility in evidence of the documents and papers in the disbarment
case (Alfredo Martin v Alfredo Felix, Jr.) of petitioners lawyer, Atty. Alfonso Felix,
warrants the admissibility of the same in this case

HELD
Petitioners contention has no merit
In the disbarment case, , Dr. Alfredo Martin, as complainant in that case, charged
that in using the documents in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or
gross misconduct because of the injunctive order of the trial court
Dr. Martin, in the disbarment case, admitted himself, under oath, the truth and
authenticity of the documents
o Such verified admission constitutes an affidavit, and, therefore, receivable
in evidence against him. Petitioner became bound by his admission
, there was admittedly an order of the Manila Regional Trial Court prohibiting
Cecilia from using the documents Annex A-I to J-7. On September 6, 1983,
however having appealed the said order to this Court on a petition for certiorari, this
Court issued a restraining order on aforesaid date which order temporarily set aside
the order of the trial court. Hence, during the enforceability of this Courts order,
respondents request for petitioner to admit the genuineness and authenticity of the
subject annexes cannot be looked upon as malpractice
By no means does the decision in that case establish the admissibility of the
documents and papers in question.
The TRO issued by this Court was eventually lifted as the petition for certiorari filed
by petitioner against the trial courts order was dismissed and, therefore, the
prohibition against the further use of the documents and papers became effective
again.
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 is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced.
o 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.
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



People v Ador

FACTS
Disodado Ador
Disodado Ador, Jr. (son of 1
st
)
Disdador Ador III (son of 1
st
)
Godofredo Ador(son of 1
st
)
Rosalino Ador
Allan Ador (son of Rosalino)
o All these 6 men killed Absalon Abe Cuya III through gunshots
Witnesses, while heading to a wedding anniversary in Pacol, Naga City, they met a
certain Pablito Umali who told them that Ompong Chavez had been shot. They
ran to Chavez straight off and saw him already lying on the ground, about 1
meters away from a lighted electric post, holding on to his intestines which were
starting to come out.
Chavez was able to tell on of the witnesses that they were ambushed by the Adors
Few meters away from Chavez was Abe Cuya, dead
Chavez expired on the way to the hospital
The police, with the help of the Barangay Captain, went to the Adors.
The Adors went to the police station the following day
Adors were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for a paraffin test
Godofredo informed his police escort that he had been entrusted with a handgun
which he kept in his residence so he was accompanied by PO3 Nepomuceno
They were able to retrieve the gun
Godofredo allegedly told the police that he fired the said gun outside their house on
the night of March 10 after he heard several gunshots
The gun was a caliber .38 paltik which had no serial number
PO3 Nepomuceno then turned over the handgun to Major Idian
Major Idian returned the handgun to PO3 Nepomuceno for ballistic and paraffin
examination
PO3 Nepomuceno placed his initials on the gun and put it in his private locker while
preparing the documents for the examinations and the possible filing of a case for
Illegal Possession of Firearm
The medico-legal of Naga city conducted an autopsy on the bodies of the 2
deceased
o Cuya had 5 gunshot wounds
o Chavez has 3 gunshot wounds
o He recovered a slug from Cuyas head three days after the autopsy after
his relatives called his attention to a protruding mass in Cuyas head
o He was able to extract a deformed .38 caliber slug, which he later
submitted to the City Prosecutors Office
Based on the ballistic examination on the bullets submitted, the .38 calliber slug
recovered from Cuya matched the three (3) .38 caliber test bullets which were test-
fired from the suspected firearm surrendered by Godofredo. However, the examiner
averred that .38 caliber bullets were actually fired from a .357 Smith and Wesson
Magnum homemade revolver without serial number, and not from a .38 caliber
revolver
The paraffin test yielded the presence of gunpowder nitrates on all the suspects,
except REYNALDO ADOR
Cuyas father said the killing was driven by the long standing feud between the
damilies
o Diosdado Jr once accused his other son of frustrated murder
o Diosdado Srs daughter accused him and 3 other of abduction with
multiple rape
The trial court dismissed the cases against Diosdado Sr., Rosalino and Allan but
denied the demurrer to evidence against Godofredo

GODOFREDOs DEFENSE
Denied participation in the killings of Cuya and Chavez
The gun was only given to him by his long-time friend, Dominador Bautista, who
found it along the road
It was his first time to hold a gun and he fired it 3x
After firing the gun, he removed the empty shells from its chambers and threw them
away.
He then wrapped the gun with plastic and hid it under a coconut trunk. Bautista left
when he told him that he had no money

WITNESS
Pabli Calsis
o Witness against Disoado Jr, Diosdado III and Godofredo when he dropped
by the house of Cresenciana Mendoza
o He saw the 3 and an unidentified man run away.
o Godofredo was carrying a short firearm while Diosdado Jr. had a long
firearm.
o He saw Chavez and Cuya lying on the road.
Chavez was about five (5) meters away from where he stood
while Cuya was ten (10) meters away.
o The place was illuminated by a bright light from an electric post. There
were no other people around. Calsis ran away for fear that he might be
identified by the assailants.
o Calsis narrated to Absalon Cuya Sr. what he saw only after about one (1)
year and nine (9) months. Fear struck him. He maintained that he knew
the assailants.
o Calsis and his family left their residence in Pacol one (1) month after the
incident because he was afraid the assailants might have identified him
o It was only after he learned from Absalon Cuya Sr. that the trial court
dismissed the cases for lack of evidence insofar as some of the original
accused were concerned that he took pity on the respective families of the
victims who have failed to get justice for the death of their loved ones

DIOSDADO JR.S DEFENSE
He was in Marikina City working as a warehouseman and timekeeper of the
Consuelo Builders Corporation
Pablo Aspe, a co-worker of Diosdado Jr., corroborated the latters testimony

DIOSDADO IIs DEFENSE
He was at their house watching tv with his parents and cousins when they heard
the gunshots
They ignored the gunshots

DEFENSES WITNESS
Barangay Captain Josue Perez
o Uncle of Diosdado Jr and Diosdado III
o He does not know any Pablo Calsis and the latter could not have talked to
Mendoza on March 10, 1997, because at that time, Mendoza was not
there and her house was already abandoned

PROSECUTIONS WITNESS
SPO1 Fernandez
o asserted that he interviewed Cresenciana Mendoza that fateful night

TRIAL COURT
o Found Godofredo and Diosdado III guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of MURDER
Diosdado III and Godofredo appealed


ISSUE
WON the trial court gravely erred in convicting them of murder based on
circumstantial evidence

HELD
Yes. Measured against the guidelines set, we cannot uphold the conviction of the
accused based on the circumstantial evidence presented.
The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial evidence to support
its conclusion of guilt. It may be the basis of a conviction so long as the
combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion which
suffices to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
theory that all the accused are guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocent and with every other
possible, rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
When circumstantial evidence will suffice:
o 1) there should be more than one circumstance;
o (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
o (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
TEST WON THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE SUFFICIENT
o The series of the circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt
of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
Guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence
o (1) it should be acted upon with caution;
o (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
o (3) the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and
o (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to
convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the
one who committed the offense
The testimony of Calsis, if at all, could hardly be used against Diosdado III whom
he miserably failed to positively identify during trial. In fact, the acquittal of
Diosdado Jr. by the trial court renders the entire testimony of Calsis in serious
doubt. Calsis was presented to positively identify the assailants who were
supposedly personally known to him and were just ten (10) meters away from him.
It puzzles us no end why he cannot even identify the Adors in open court.
The trial court favored the unbiased testimony of Aspe who said that Diosdado Jr.
worked as a timekeeper and warehouseman with him at the Consuelo Construction
at Marikina
This ruling is strengthened by the fact that on the morning following the killings, all
the male members of the Ador family were brought to the police headquarters for
paraffin examination and Diosdado Jr. was not among them.
We thus respect the finding of the trial court that indeed Diosdado Jr. was not at the
scene of the crime absent any indication that the lower court overlooked some facts
or circumstances which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.
While it is true that the courts are not bound to accept or reject an entire testimony,
and may believe one part and disbelieve another, our Constitution and the law
mandate that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. Calsis
committed an obvious blunder in identifying the supposed assailants which this
Court cannot simply let go. On the contrary, it creates reasonable doubt in our
minds if Calcis really saw the persons he allegedly saw or if he was even where he
said he was that evening. For, it is elementary that the positive identification of the
accused is crucial in establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is
wanting in the instant case.
Conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution
and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

2
nd
circumstantial evidence; .38 caliber revolver
Both Major Idian and PO3 Nepomuceno identified the gun surrendered by
Godofredo as a .38 caliber revolver
However, Insp. Fulgar, Chief of the Firearm Identification Section of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, testified that their office found out that the firearm was not a .38 caliber
revolver but a .357 caliber revolver.
o Suffice it to say that the prosecution failed to clear up the variance and for
this Court to suggest an explanation would be to venture into the realm of
pure speculation, conjecture and guesswork

3
rd
circumstantial evidence
The .38 caliber slug supposedly recovered from the head of the victim three (3)
days after the autopsy was conducted loses evidentiary value as its source is now
highly questionable. It has become uncertain whether the deformed slug was fired
from the .38 caliber revolver turned in by Godofredo or from a .357 caliber handgun
as attested to by the Chief of the Firearm Identification Section of the PNP Crime
Laboratory.

The only direct evidence introduced by the prosecution is the testimony of Mercy
Beria, that she heard Rodolfo Ompong Chavez say tinambangan kami na Ador
(We were ambushed by the Adors). Sad to say, no specific name was ever
mentioned by the witness. Neither was she able to tell how many (persons)
Adors were involved.
While a paraffin test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the
hand, it cannot establish that the source of the nitrates was the discharge of
firearms a person who tests positive may have handled one or more substances
with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,
pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.
The admissions made by Godofredo to Major Idian and PO3 Nepomuceno
including the gun in question cannot be considered in evidence against him without
violating his constitutional right to counsel. Godofredo was already under custodial
investigation when he made his admissions and surrendered the gun to the police
authorities
o Any waiver of these rights should be in writing and undertaken with the
assistance of counsel. Admissions under custodial investigation made
without the assistance of counsel are barred as evidence.

Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez v CA

FACTS
Rafael S. Ortanez
o Private respondent
o Filed a complaint in the RTC of QC for annulment of marriage with
damages against petitioner
lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the
petitioner
after presenting his evidence, orally formally offered in evidence
Exhibits "A" to "M"
3 cassette tapes tapes of alleged telephone
conversations between petitioner and unidentified
persons.
Tereista Salcedo-Ortanez
o Petitioner
o Submitted her objection/comment to Rafaels oral offer of evidence
However, on the same day of the objection, the trial court
admitted all of private respondents offered evidence
MR was filed by petitioner
o Denied
Petition for certiorari was filed by petitioner in the CA
o Denied
Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. They 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
A petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a
supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during trial. The
ruling on admissibility is INTERLOCUTORY
Petition for review c/o SC

ISSUE
whether or not 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
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
In this case, the trial court admitted for evidence tape recordings of telephone
conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape recordings were
made and obtained when private respondent allowed his friends from the military to
wiretap his home telephone.
o 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
Trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the afore-quoted provisions of
the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question. 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

People v Baconguis

FACTS
Case of automatic review of the death penalty imposed upon Baconguis
Ruel Baconguis
o Attacked Roberto Mercado, taxi driver, with the use of gun killing the same
o Pleaded not gulty
o Found positive for gunpowder nitrates on both hands durin a paraffin-test
Lydia Mercado-Lledo
o Witness
o Narrated that she saw the accused as he leave the place of her younger
brother
o She found her younger brother and brought him to the hospital
Alibi of Baconguis
o he took a walk along Limketkai with his common-law-wife Liezel Sacala,
child, mother-in-law and sister-in-law after which they returned to the
house of his in-laws; and at the time of the incident, he was fast asleep
Trial Court
o Convicted appellant

ISSUE


HELD
evidence relied upon by the prosecution is circumstantial
for circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict, the following requisites must be
met:
o There is more than one circumstance;
o The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
o The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
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
o corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-
court identification during the trial of the case
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of
suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test
TOTALITY OF CITCUMSTANCES TEST
o (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
o (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
o (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
o (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
o (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
o (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure
Applying the above-said test, there are nagging doubts if Lydia had a good
opportunity to view the man she saw leaving her house
Problem with Lydias testimony
o after hearing a gunshot, she stood up and opened the 3-panel jalousied
and grilled bedroom window upon which she saw a tall, slim man who was
about 5 meters away at the right side of the window;[22] and the man
turned his face to the left, glancing at the terrace[23] which terrace she
could not see from where she was, but which was lighted by an 18-watt
[n]ot quite dim but more yellow bulb attached to the road (sic).[24]
o If Lydia could not see the terrace[25] which was five meters away from
where she was, how could the suspect, who was by her account also five
meters away from the terrace, glance at the terrace by merely turning his
whole face to the left, given the logical location of the terrace to be
obliquely behind (to his right) him.
There were improper suggestions during the identification process
what was undertaken by the police in the identification of appellant by Lydia, has
been held to be an UNDERHANDED MODE OF IDENTIFICATION for "being
pointedly suggestive, generating confidence where there was none, activating
visual imagination, and, all told, subverting their reliability as an eyewitness
Lydia knew that she was going to identify a suspect, whose name had priorly been
furnished by her brother-policeman, when she went to the police station. And the
police pointed appellant to her, and told her that he was the suspect, while he was
behind bars, ALONE
In People v. Acosta, this Court rejected the identification by a witness of the
accused while the latter was ALONE in his detention cell
As for the positive paraffin findings on appellant, it is well settled that nitrates are
also found in substances other than gunpowder. Thus, in a number of cases, the
Court acquitted the accused despite the finding of gunpowder nitrates on his hand
Scientific experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not
conclusive.
While it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it does not
always indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by the discharge
of firearm. The person tested may have handled one or more of a number of
substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as
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

People v Yatar (2004)

FACTS
Joel Yatar
o Sentenced to death for the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide
o Victim was Kathlyn Uba, 17 year old, his neice
o Denied any knowledge of Kathlyns death but was nonetheless placed
under police custody
o Asked the police officers if he could relieve himself. A police officer
accompanied him to the toilet around seven to ten meters away from the
police station. They suddenly heard someone shouted that he was running
away.
o He recaptured
o Charged with Rape with Homicide
o He pleaded not guilty
He was convicted by the trial court

ISSUE
WON the trial court erred in giving much weight to the evidence presented by the
prosecution notwithstanding their doubtfulness

HELD
The trial court did not err
This Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the
credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted
Findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on
appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reexamination if not
the disturbance of the same
accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient
circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that
the accused committed the crime
The estimated time of death was sometime between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
June 30, 1998. This was within the timeframe within which the lone presence of
appellant lurking in the house of Isabel Dawang was testified to by witnesses.
The sperm specimen found from the vagina of the victim was identical with the
semen to be that of appellants gene type
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective
means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect,
where biological evidence has been left
Forensic DNA evidence is 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
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider the
following factors:
o how the samples were collected,
o how they were handled,
o the possibility of contamination of the samples,
o the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
o whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting
the tests, and
o the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests
A DNA MATCH exists between the semen found in the victim and the blood
sample given by the appellant in open court during the course of the trial
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on
scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and
reliable.
Relevant evidence
o 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
PCR testing and utilizing 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
Independently of the physical evidence of appellants semen found in the victims
vaginal canal, the trial court appreciated the following circumstantial evidence as
being sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an
unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused,
to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the crime.
To determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three requisites
must concur:
o (1) There is more than one circumstance;
o (2) Facts on which the inferences are derived are proven; and
o (3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
WON the blood sample taken as well as the DNA tests were in violation of his right
to remain silent as well as his right against self-incrimination

HELD
No.
The right against self- incrimination 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
A person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin,
blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved

ISSUE:
WON he should be acquitted on reasonable doubt.

HELD
No. The present case passes the test of moral certainty
The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is relevant
evidence from which the court can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in order to sustain
a conviction
Moral certainty
o Degree of certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and
satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it.
o Certainty beyond reasonable doubt
o Requires that the circumstances, taken together, should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency
Appellants motive to sexually assault and kill the victim was evident in the instant
case.
It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is established by the
testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or
immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express
it or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred

People v Tumimpad

FACTS
Sandra Salcedo
o 15 years old Mongoloid at the time of the incident
o daughter of Lt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo
o had a mind of a five-year old child, who still needed to be fed and dressed
up
Lt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo
o then Provincial Commander of Misamis Occidental
o Four security men were assigned to him, two of whom were accused
Constable Ruel Prieto and accused-appellant Moreno Tumimpad
Sandra complained of constipation. Mrs. Salcedo then brought her to a doctor in
Oroquieta City for a checkup. Medication was given to Sandra but her condition did
not improve. Sandra became irritable and moody. She felt sick and unhappy
The following day, Sandra saw Moreno Tumimpad coming out from the kitchen and
told her mother, "Mama, patayin mo 'yan, bastos."
Mrs. Salcedo brought her to Regina Hospital. Sandra was able to relieve herself
the following day but still remained moody and irritable. She refused to take a bath
in spite of scoldings from her mother. She did not want to eat and whenever she
did, she would vomit.
Sandra was pregnant
Sandra gave birth to a baby boy
Mrs. Salcedo filed the complaint
During the investigation, 30 pictures of different persons were laid on the table and
Sandra was asked to pick up the pictures of her assailants. Sandra singled out the
pictures of Moreno Tumimpad and Ruel Prieto
Later, Sandra was brought out of the investigation room to a police line-up of ten
people, including Moreno Tumimpad and Ruel Prieto. She was again asked to
point to her assailants. Without hesitation, Sandra fingered Moreno Tumimpad and
Ruel Prieto
Sandra demonstrated how she was raped
Both accused moved that a blood test be conducted
o Jacob Salcedo has a type "O" blood,
o Sandra Salcedo type "B",
o accused Ruel Prieto type "A" and
o Moreno Tumimpad accused-appellant type "O"
Trial court acquitted Prieto

ISSUE
WON the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant

HELD
No.
It is true that the accused usually went with Col. Salcedo during inspection tours
but sometimes they were left behind and would play pingpong or card games with
Sandra at the ground floor of the house. While Sandra was always with her mother,
there were times when she was left alone in the house with the accused.
Sandra has positively identified the accused 3 times
o 30 pictures
o Line-up
o Open court
The victim's sister-in-law testified that Sandra demonstrated to her how she was
ravished by the two accused
Accused-appellant simplistically and quite erroneously argues that his conviction
was based on the medical finding that he and the victim have the same blood type
"O".
Accused-appellants' culpability was established mainly by testimonial evidence
given by the victim herself and her relatives. The blood test was adduced as
evidence only to show that the alleged father or any one of many others of the
same blood type may have been the father of the child.
Paternity Science has demonstrated that by the analysis of blood samples of the
mother, the child, and the alleged father, it can be established conclusively that the
man is not the father of a particular child. But group blood testing cannot show only
a possibility that he is. Statutes in many states, and courts in others, have
recognized the value and the limitations of such tests. Some of the decisions have
recognized the conclusive presumption of non-paternity where the results of the
test, made in the prescribed manner, show the impossibility of the alleged paternity.
This is one of the few cases in which the judgment of the Court may scientifically
be completely accurate, and intolerable results avoided, such as have occurred
where the finding is allowed to turn on oral testimony conflicting with the results of
the test. The findings of such blood tests are not admissible to prove the fact of
paternity as they show only a possibility that the alleged father or any one of many
others with the same blood type may have been the father of the child.


People v Sartagoda

FACTS
Appellant broke into the house of Rogelio de Belen
After the three of them had successfully deflowered Vilma, they left, carrying with
them the money and other personal belongings of the de Belen family.
Vilmas external examination showed no physical injuries except several abrasions
at the genital area. Internal examination showed fresh lacerations of the hymen at
9:00 and 4:00 positions. The vagina admitted two fingers with ease.

ISSUE
WON the lower court erred in not declaring (that) the evidence of the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

HELD
The lower court did not err
It is their contention that since their fingerprints 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.
We 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.
The absence of fingerprints 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

People v Carpo

FACTS
Ruben Meriales
o Witness
o His mother who was apprehensive that their cow might be stolen prodded
him to check why their dog was barking. But the noise grew louder. After
transferring his cow nearer to his house, he went inside the kitchen, stood
atop the concrete washbasin, hid himself behind the bamboo slats and
peeped outside to observe.
o He saw barangay captain Jaime Carpo together with Warlito Ibao
suspiciously stooping near his barn. Together with them were Warlitos 2
sons, Roche and Oscar. They were all looking in the direction of
Florentino Dulay's house which was about a meter to the south from
where he was. Oscar lifted the sawali mat near the wall and hurled
something inside. Oscar then scurried off towards the nearby creek with
Roche following him. Seconds later, a loud explosion shook the entire
neighborhood and Teresita Dulay's screams broke into the night.
o He helped rush the family of Dulay to the hospital. Dulay was already
dead. Dulays wife and 1 daughter died. Only 1 daughter survived.
o Fearful however that the culprits would return, Ruben Meriales refused to
give any statement but intimated to Police Officer Guillermo Osio that he
would go to the police station after the burial.
o Week later, he went to the police to give his testimony
o He further said that Florentino was killed because he was about to testify
against Roche Ibao for the murder of his (Ruben Meriales) brother Delfin
Meriales
o Criminal complaint was filed
o Warrants of arrest were issued
All of the accused have their own alibis
Crime charged
o multiple murder of Florentino, Norwela and Nissan Dulay and the
attempted murder of Noemi Dulay
Trial court
o Convicted the 4 accused
o Penalty imposed was death
o Automatic review by the SC
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

ISSUE


HELD
Lie Detector Test
o 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.