Legal Medicine

Reflection from Court Observation:

On February 21, 2017, I was able to observe a court hearing with an expert
witness on direct examination. It was entitled Carol Dell V. Villanueva vs. Joseph
Gerard De Leon.

The expert witness in this civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage is
Dr. XXX, a psychiatrist with several years of practice in the field. She testified on
the interviews she had with the petitioner. In her testimony, she relayed to the
court the information she gathered from the petitioner and the informants. She
testified as to how she conducted the interview to get the relevant information
from the informants in order to arrive at the conclusion that what are being said
are the truth as to the psychological condition of the respondent as to constitute
a ground for the annulment of the marriage. However, in her testimony, she said
that she was not able to personally interview the respondent as he was already
abroad and merely relied on the information derived from the plaintiff and the
plaintiffs witnesses which I think are self-serving and tends to favor the plaintiff.

I dont think there will be a fair understanding of the psycological condition

of the respondent without having to personally examine him and talking to him.
However, she assured the court that she had a thorough study of the case and
that she was certain that her report was based on the facts and her long
experience as a psychiatrist. Ultimately, it is the court which has the final say on
whether to grant the petition or not. The expert only assists the court in the
determination of issues.

In this kind of case, the help of an expert witness proves to have a critical
role since the lack or insufficiency of it will not prove the psychological incapacity
of the party/ies thereby having the possibilty of being dismissed by the court.
CASE DIGESTS:

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Aliben et. al. which was a
murder case, the expert witness proved to be vital in disputing the accuseds
testimony that only one instrument was used in the crime thereby negating the
allegation by one of the accused that it was not murder but self-defense. The
expert testimony also proved that there was indeed intent to kill since all of the
injuries sustained by the deceased victim where located on the head and face and
that the fatal injuries were the cause of immediate death of the victim, further
disputing allegation of self-defense. In this case, the Court decided against the
accused.

In the case of Tabao vs. People of the Philippines, a case involving reckless
imprudence, the petitioner-accused relied heavily on the statement of the
statement of the police officer as witness who testified that the petitioners car
could not have bumped the victim because the latters body was not thrown in
line with the car, but on its side. The petitioner argues that Police Officer is highly
qualified in the field of traffic accident investigation, and as such, his statements
are backed-up by the principles of applied physics, engineering, and mathematics.
The court ruled that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence. The use of the word may signifies that the use of opinion
of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the
courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the
testimony of the expert witness.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Umanito, the Supreme Court
resolved to apply, for the very first time, the New Rules on DNA Evidence thereby
remanding the case to the RTC for the reception of the DNA evidence in order to
prove whether Umanito is the father of the child who was allegedly born out or
rape. The result from the test showed 99.9999% probability of paternity that
Umanito was the biological father of the child. The disputable presumption that
was established as a result of the DNA testing was not contradicted and overcome
by other evidence considering that the accused did not object to the admission of
the results of the DNA testing. Hence, the guilt of Umanito was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.