Object Evidence feb 21,2020

1. Pp v. Carreon, 1997

Facts: accused was charged and convicted of violating sec 4 of RA 6425 DDA 1972
by RTC she appealed which dwell on the alleged
(1) insufficiency of evidence to prove her guilt;
(2) erroneous admission in evidence of the bundles of marijuana, and
(3) failure of the trial court to give any probative value on the supposed affidavit of
desistance of the apprehending officers and on her defense of denial.

Issue: WN the contention is correct?

Ruling: No, the argument is unpersuasive. Appellant seems to have lost sight of
the fact that her conviction was not premised on the presence or absence of the
bag, but on her apprehension in flagrante delicto, i.e., while in the possession of
and transporting the prohibited drugs. The non-presentation of the bag does not
debilitate the case for the prosecution. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony
of C2C Rivera, on the other hand, is inconsequential. The testimony, we note, is
unmistakably clear that the bag was forwarded to the Provincial Headquarters from
where appellant took the same. In addition, minor inconsistencies do not discredit
but rather strengthen the testimony of a witness as they erase any suspicion of a
rehearsed testimony. 5 The alleged insufficiency of evidence, therefore, is more
imagined than real.

Should the same officer be the one to submit the substance to FL? Chain of
custody rule?
No, what is important is that the transmittal of the specimen, as in this case, was
not vitiated by irregularity or fraud to cast doubt on the authenticity and source of
the subject specimen.
The presumption of reg is not tainted Moreover, the subject marijuana leaves
taken from the appellant were duly identified by C2C Rivera, the apprehending
officer and Lt. Ong, the chemist assigned at the Crime Laboratory where the
specimen was brought for testing. In the absence of evidence to indicate that these
witnesses were moved by improper motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith
and credit.
 2. Balingit v. COMELEC
Appellant is a person who applies to a higher court for reversal of the decision of
the lower court. Appellee is the respondent in a case appealed to a higher court.

Facts: Pet filed an election protest against Yamat alleging fraud in the counting and
preparation of ballot.
Balingit wants the Court to consider in his favor the six ballots that Commissioner
Sadain opined to be invalid and should not be credited to Yamat, thus giving him an
edge of three votes, i.e. 249 as against Yamat's 246, and making him the victor. Suffice
it to say that the COMELEC adequately explained the reason for holding these six
ballots as valid, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the appreciation of these
ballots by the COMELEC, acting as a collegial body, should be upheld.17

Issue: Wn there was grave of abuse committed by COMELEC?

Rule: No, there is none. Balingit also appears to be in awe of the MCTC's disquisition
on the invalidity of these ballots, quoting the MCTC's use of the term "autoptic
proference" in maintaining that its rulings on the objections and claims of the parties is
the valid ruling. Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-
perception, of the thing itself. COMELEC may not have used such a high-sounding term,
nevertheless, it does not follow that it did not examine the ballots or that its findings
were flawed.
On petitioner’s petition to consider in his favor six ballots: The appreciation of
the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the
determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of
elections all over the country, as it is the constitutional commission vested with the
exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and
city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective
municipal and barangay officials. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any
jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and
decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence
shall not be interfered with by this Court.8 Suffice it to say that the COMELEC
adequately explained the reason for holding these six ballots as valid, and absent any
evidence to the contrary, the appreciation of these ballots by the COMELEC, acting as a
collegial body, should be upheld.
Sison v. People,1995

Facts: Salcedo was mauled by marcos loyalist.

Issue: the CA gravely erred on the admissibility of the photographs

Rule: no.
ADMISSIBILITY; PHOTOGRAPHS; PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF EXACTNESS AND
ACCURACY SUFFICIENT. — The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when
presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production
and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this
kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original,
and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of
the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the
pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which
the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other
competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their
alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and
accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful representations of the mauling
incident was affirmed when appellants Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan
identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat.

Mistake in Testimonies: Banculo’s mistake in identifying another person as one of

the accused does not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. 33 It does not make
his whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful
testimony. Perfect testimonies cannot be expected from persons with imperfect senses.
In the court’s discretion, therefore, the testimony of a witness can be believed as to
some facts but disbelieved with respect to the others.
People v. Amestuzo

Facts:

Issue: 1.WN the court erred on the admissibility of the our of court id and WN the trial
court improperly rejected the defense of alibi.

Rule: no, In resolving the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications,

we have applied the totality of circumstances test enunciated in the case of People v.
Teehankee 15 which lists the following factors: chanrob1es vi rtua 1 1aw 1ib rary

. . . (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given
by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6)
the suggestiveness of the identification process.

The out-of-court identification of herein accused-appellant by complainants in the police

station appears to have been improperly suggestive. Even before complainants had the
opportunity to view accused-appellant face-to-face when he was brought our of the
detention cell to be presented to them for identification, the police made an
announcement that he was one of the suspects in the crime and that he was the one
pointed to by accused Ampatin as one of culprits. It is, thus, clear that the identification
was practically suggested by the police themselves when they announced to the
complainants that accused-appellant was the person pointed to by Ampatin. The fact
that this information came to the knowledge the complainants prior to their
identification based on their own recall of the incident detracts from the spontaneity of
their subsequent identification and therefore, its objectivity. ch

XPN to general rule in alibi The Court has held that where an accused sets up alibi
as a defense, the courts should not be too readily disposed to dismiss the same, for,
taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to reverse the
outcome of the case as found by the trial court and hereby rightly set the accused free.
Though inherently weak as a defense, alibi in the present case has been sufficiently
established by corroborative testimonies of credible witnesses and by evidence of
physical impossibility of accused-appellant’s presence at the scene of the crime
Alibi, therefore, should have been properly appreciated in accused-appellant’s favor he
defense of alibi or denial assumes significance or strength when it is amply
corroborated by a credible witness. 24 And to be given weight, Accused must prove not
only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but that he was so far
away that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
Indictum of truth as a co-accused, it would have been more consistent with human
nature for Ampatin to implicate accused-appellant if indeed he was one of the gang. In
fact, the Court has recognized that "as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing
a crime is likely to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than himself The
fact that he testified to the innocence of a co-accused, an act which insulted in no
advantage or benefit to him and which might in fact implicate him more, should have
been received by the trial court as an indicum of the truth of Ampatin’s testimony and
the innocence of herein Accused-Appellant. Ampatin’s testimony, therefore, should have
been given weight by the trial court