People vs.

Dasig et al GR L-5275 August 1953

Midnight one evening, defendants entered the
house of Ramil and his family, shot Ramil and
held children at gunpoint while they ransacked
their house
.32 .22 and .45 shells were found at the crime
scene
Conviction was based on the testimony of
Mallillin
Mallillin testified: on his way home, he was held
up by defendants of whom took his pistol which
explains the .32 shells in the crime scene as
one of the pistols used was registered in
Mallillins name
Mallillin testified: he was forced to follow them
and wait outside the house of Ramils (met
Bumanglag on the way), when the crime
ensued, we went away. The next day he was
called by one of defendants and was told that
he shall be killed if Mallillin shall squeal to the
police
Mallillins testimony was corroborated
Bumanglag and was promised that he be made
a state witness (immune from criminal
prosecution)
Defendants claim that the confession of
Mallillin is inadmissible as a rule being a result
of a promise to be made state witness. The
court ruled that the evidence was not a
confession, but a testimony in open court.
Defendants also claim that the testimony
contains several flaws, thus the maxim Falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing;
false in everything) should apply. One of which
was the fact that he had been compelled by
defendants when he admitted that he and
defendants play poker together
W/N the maxim shall apply?
No
Limitation of the maxim by jurisprudence:
when the witness has willfully made a false
statement. The whole statement cannot be
discredited based on an error.
The maxim is not a mandatory rule, but rather
a permissible one, leaving the court the
discretion to accept or not.
that the maxim should not apply in the case at
bar for three reasons. First, there is sufficient
corroboration on many grounds of the
testimony. Second, the mistakes are not on the
very material points. Third, the errors do not
arise from an apparent desire to pervert the
truth, but from innocent mistakes and the
desire of the witness to exculpate himself
though not completely
People of the Philippines vs. Webb et al (Vizconde
Muders)
Estrellita and her 2 daughters were brutally
slain in their home. Suspects were brought into
custody and gave detailed confessions, but the
court smelled a frame-up and the suspects
were discharged
4 years later, Alfaro was presented as state
witness, who claims had witnessed the crime
and imputed the defendants as the offenders.
Webb was accused for rape with homicide
The trial court denied the alibis of the
defendants they paled compared to Alfaros
statement
CA affirmed
Webb had requested for a DNA analysis of the
semen in the cadaver of Carmela which was
believed to be in the custody of the NBI. The
NBI alleged that it had turned it over to the trial
court, but no record shows the specimen being
used as evidence. Thus, prompted Webb to file
a motion to acquit
W/N Webb should be acquitted outright
by failure to produce the semen specimen
found in Carmelas cadaver

No
The semen specimen taken from Carmella
cannot possibly lie, especially when questions
had been raised on the credibility of Alfaro
identifying Webb as the rapist and killer.
Arizona v. Youngblood,10 where the U.S.
Supreme Court held that due process does not
require the State to preserve the semen
specimen although it might be useful to the
accused unless the latter is able to show bad
faith on the part of the prosecution or the
police
Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing
DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did
not yet have the technology for conducting the
test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet
recognized its admissibility as evidence
Parenthetically, after the trial court denied
Webbs application for DNA testing, he allowed
the proceeding to move on when he had on at
least two occasions gone up to the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court to challenge
alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and
the other accused
W/N Alfaros testimony is believeable
No
There a several point to discredit her
testimony:
1. Against the Barroso Gangs confessions (a)
breaking into the house by smashing the
glass door no sense for webb to hurl a
rock at midnight and causing tremendous
noise (b) they ransacked the house of the
Vizcondes it also makes no sense for
Ventura(companion of Webb) to go through
a handbag looking for the keys of the front
door when in fact they were already in the
house (c) The gang had climbed onto one
of the cars to loosen a light bulb in the
garage as they were executing a robbery
Webb and ventura had nothing to do in the
garage in the first place as Alfaro stated
that Carmela had left the kitchen door
open
2. Motive Alfaro was the Darling of the NBI
because of her contribution to the Bureau.
And her testimony would have solved the
crime of the decade, thus, NBI had a stake
in making her sound credible and prepared
her for such
3. Quality of the testimony (1) Alfaro testified
that she was introduced to Webb for the
first time that night, making no sense to
why Webb would agree to make her his
messenger to Carmela, decided to stick
with Web and the others for the whole
night, and also stuck with them when Webb
allegedly decided to rape Carmela, when
clearly she was going to get nothing out of
such acts (2) Why would Alfaro need to spy
on Carmela when she was given no such
orders by Webb she needed to provide a
reason for Webb to freak out (3) Alfaro led
Webb and the others into the house of
Carmela which would make no sense
being a stranger to Webb before that night,
and Webb shouldve led being the gang
leader, and Alfaro had no benefit from such
acts (4) Alfaro heard a woman saying Sino
yan in which she immediately left the
premises but went back a few minutes to
witness the crime her act of leaving was
the valid frame of mind, fear of getting
involved, but why did she return to the
house after that event
4. The supposed Corroborations (1) Security
Guard on duty that night Alfaro claimed
she went into the subdivision alone to
Carmela, and yet the guard did not see her
stop at the guardhouse. He also failed to
notice Biong (police accomplice) entering
or exiting the subdivision that night (2)

Laundry woman of the Webbs at the time

claimed that webb had left clothes with
blood stains which she got at 4am, which is
unusual for a laundry woman to be
collecting laundry at 4am and how could
she possibly remember correctly the acts
of all the webs four years ago which she
admitted. She also did not call the
attention aof anyone when she found the
blood. And since webb had asked the help
of Biong, why would he be so idiotic not to
dispose of his blood stained shirt
5. The relationship of Webb and Carmella no
one had knowledge of such relationship
exisiting, even the close friends of
Carmella, nor did they have knowledge
that Webb had been courting her. Also,
they had no knowledge of any guy
connected to Carmella at the time,
rendering highly doubtful the testimony of
Alfaro that she saw Carmella drop-off a
male individual.
W/N Webb presented sufficient alibi to rebut
Alfaros testimony
Yes
Positive identification defeats an alibi, but such
positive identification must come from a
credible witness which Alfaro fails to be.
The U.S. Immigration certification and the
computer print-out of Webbs arrival in and
departure from that country were
authenticated by no less than the Office of the
U.S. Attorney General and the State
Department.
Webbs passport is a document issued by the
Philippine government, which under
international practice, is the official record of
travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The
entries in that passport are presumed true.