CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

1
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE

DIGEST OF THE DIGEST

OPINION RULE
(RULE 130, SECS. 48-50)

DILAG & CO. V. MERCED: Dilag filed a case

conducted a test on him. The examiners

report revealed that there were no specific
reactions indicative of deception to pertinent
questions relevant to the investigation of the
crime.

against Merced for the theft of his truck.

Merced claimed that he purchased the truck in
good faith and he relied on his certified copy
of the certificate of registration. Merced
impugns the testimony of Aguilar, (as a
witness to testify on the alleged tampering of
the motor number), on the ground that he is
not qualified as expert on motor numbers.

DOCTRINE: Courts are not bound to submit to

DOCTRINE: There is no precise requirement as

rape
with
homicide.
The
prosecution
submitted DNA evidence gathered from the
body of the victim which matched the DNA
profile of Vallejo. He assailed the DNA
analysis, claiming that it failed to show that
the samples submitted for DNA testing were
not contaminated after having been soaked in
smirchy water before being submitted to the
laboratory.

to the mode in which skill or experience shall

have been acquired. Scientific study and
training are not always essential to the
competency of a witness as an expert. A
witness may be competent to testify as an
expert although his knowledge his knowledge
was acquired through the medium of practical
experience rather than scientific study and
research.

UNITED STATES V. TRONO: Trono et al. were

accused of ill treatment of three persons
arrested, as a result of which one died.
Defense admits the fact of arrest but denies ill
treatment. Dr. Icasiano testified to the effect
that the deceased had not died due to wounds
but by hepatic colic, a disease suffered by the
deceased for a long time.

DOCTRINE: Courts are not bound to submit to

expert testimony. They are free to weigh
them. They can give or refuse to give them
any value as poof or they can counterbalance
such evidence with other elements of
conviction which have been adduced during
the trial.

PEOPLE V. ADOVISO: Adoviso was charged

with double murder. He offered in evidence
the testimony a NBI polygraph examiner who

expert testimony. Faith and credit must not be

vested upon the lie detector test, which is not
conclusive as the polygraph has not yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable
and accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception.

PEOPLE V. VALLEJO: Vallejo was charged with

DOCTRINE: In assessing the probative value

of DNA evidence, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data: how
the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of
the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests, and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests.

STATE V. GARVER: Garver et al. robbed and

shot a person. He set up the defense of
insanity. Garvers mother related to the jury
the history of her sons insanity. The court
rejected the phrases such a terrible shape
and physically ill used in her testimony on
the theory that they were mere opinions or
conclusions of the witness.

DOCTRINE: The general rule is that a witness

may testify only to facts and not to opinions or
conclusions. But lay witnesses are frequently
permitted to use the so-called short-hand
descriptions, in reality opinions, in presenting
to the court their impression of the general
physical condition of a person.

UNITED STATES V. STIFEL: Stifel allegedly

murdered a person by sending him an
exploding package consisting of a mailing
tube with a screw-on top. The expert
testimony of a chemist and microanalyst
indicated the materials used for the bomb
were found to be microscopically identical to
the materials which were in the stocky room
where Stifel worked. The expert testimony
was assailed on the ground that the test was
too new and unreliable and had not yet been
accepted by scientists in its particular field.

DOCTRINE: On questions of science, skill or

trade or others of the like kind, persons of skill
or experts may not only testify to facts, but
are permitted to give their opinion in
evidence.

DAUBERT V. MERRELL: Two minor children

with serious birth defects, along with their
parents alleged in their suit against
respondent that the childrens birth defects
had been caused by the mothers prenatal
ingestion of a prescription drug marketed by
respondent.

DOCTRINE: Scientific evidence is admissible if

supported by sound methodology. The trial
judge discharges his or her responsibility by
acting as a gate-keeper, and admitting such
evidence
as
is
supported
by
sound
methodological principles, while excluding
that built upon speculation and conjecture.
This permissive rule honors one of the central
tenets of the Federal Rules of Evidence by
favoring admissibility of all potentially
relevant evidence.

CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

2
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
CIVIL CASES

UNITED STATES V. BONDS: Hartlaub was

PEOPLE V. PRECIADOS: The accused were

gunned down in his van. Bonds et al. were

convicted of conspiracy and federal firearms
offenses. The gun used in the shooting and
Hartlaubs van were found abandoned behind
a hotel, both spattered with blood. Serology
tests showed that the blood matched those
found in Bonds blood.

claimed by the wife of the victim to have

conspired and murdered her husband by
forcing him to drink insecticide. In an affidavit,
she alleged that by peeping through a twoinch hole in the 2nd floor of an old rice mill, she
saw the appellant holding a hand grenade
while his other arm was locked in a
stranglehold around the neck of the other
victim who knelt on the floor.

DOCTRINE:

DNA tests meet the expert

testimony requirement. Scientific evidence is
admissible if it is both relevant and reliable.
The following is a non-exclusive list of factors:
(1) whether a theory or technique can be
tested, (2) whether the theory or technique
has been subjected to peer review and
publication, (3) the known or potential rate of
error in using a particular scientific technique
and the existence and maintenance of
standards
controlling
the
techniques
operation an (4) whether the theory or
technique has been generally accepted in the
particular scientific field.

JIMENEZ

V. COMMISSION: The lot was

donated by the Commission to the United
Church, as evidenced by a TCT and a Deed of
Donation. Jimenez claims that their parents
never sold the lot to the Commission and
United Church and that the purported
signatures of their parents have been found to
be forgeries by government handwriting
experts.

DOCTRINE: Opinions of handwriting experts

are not binding upon courts. A finding of
forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts, because
the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in
order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
to its authenticity. Resort to these experts is
not mandatory or indispensable to the
examination
or
the
comparison
of
handwriting.

DOCTRINE: An affidavit does not prove the

truthfulness of the allegations made and
contained therein. The testimony of its single
purported eyewitness, while positive, was less
than credible. Such testimony of the lone
witness did not meet the test to sustain a
judgment of conviction which must be both
positive and credible.

PEOPLE V. DURANAN: A retard accused

Duranan of raped her twice. Duranan posited
that the retards mental age was not proven.
Under the RPC, an essential element for the
prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a
psychiatric evaluation of the complainants
mental age to determine if her mental age is
under twelve.

DOCTRINE: It is competent for the ordinary

witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, provided the
witness has had sufficient opportunity to
observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Therefore,
the mother of the rape victim, though not a
psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and
mental condition of the party, how she was
born, what she is suffering from, and what her
attainments are, is competent to testify on the
matter.
BURDEN OF PROOF & PRESUMPTIONS
(RULE 131, SECS. 1-4)

PORENELLOSA V. LTA: Pornellosa bought a

portion of the Santa Clara Estate. After 8
installments, the government refused to
accept further payments. Pornellosa found out
that the lot had been subdivided into two
smaller lots.

DOCTRINE: A party claiming a right granted or

created by law must prove his claim by
competent evidence. He is duty-bound to
prove his allegations in the complaint and
must rely on the strength of his evidence and
not on the weakness of that of his opponent.
Furthermore, the law requires that such
transmission of real rights must be embodied
in a public document.

IFC V. TOBIAS: Tobias bought on installment

a Dodge truck. He executed a promissory note
which is secured by a chattel mortgage on the
dodge truck. The seller indorsed the
promissory note to IFC. IFC demanded
payment of the balance or to surrender the
dodge truck. Tobias replied that he will
surrender the truck because it met an
accident and there was too much delay in the
repair. IFC alleged that it had no knowledge of
the accident and decided not to get the truck
anymore.

DOCTRINE: The allegation of IFC is a negative

allegation and needs no evidence to support
it, not being an essential part of the statement
of the right on which the cause of action is
founded.

CRIMINAL CASES

PEOPLE

V. PAJENADO: Pajenado shot a

person and was convicted for his murder and
for illegal possession of a firearm.

HELD: In criminal cases, the burden of proof

as

to

the

offense

charged

lies

on

the

CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

3
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
prosecution and that a negative fact alleged
by the prosecution must be proven if it is an
essential ingredient of the offense charged.
The mere fact that the adverse party has the
control of the better means of proof of the fact
alleged should not relieve the party making
the averment of the burden of proving it. A
party who alleges a fact must be assumed to
have acquired some knowledge thereof;
otherwise, he could not have alleged the
same.

UNITED STATES V. DUBE: Dube was tried on

an indictment charging him with robbery of a
bank. He did not deny that he committed the
robbery, but introduced the testimony of a
psychiatrist and a psychologist that he was a
schizophrenic when he committed the offense.
The prosecution did not present expert
opinion evidence but relied instead on crossexamination and the lay testimony of two
bank tellers and Dubes accomplice.

HELD: A criminal defendant is presumed sane,

but the introduction of evidence of insanity
dispels the presumption and subjects the
prosecution to the burden of proving sanity
beyond a reasonable doubt. The expert
testimony is not conclusive even where
uncontradicted.

PEOPLE V. VERZOLA: Verzola clubbed to

Bernardo in the presence of Josefina. His body
was carried and left at the foot of the stairs of
his house. Verzola changed his clothes and
went to the municipal building and reported to
the police authorities that Bernardo had died
in an accident. Josefina gave a written
statement pointing to Verzola as the assailant
of Bernardo. Verzola executed a written
statement admitting that he clubbed Bernardo
several times. Both Verzola and Josefina
repudiated their extrajudicial confessions.
Verzola claims that he killed Bernardo in selfdefense.

DOCTRINE: No such proof of self defense was

adduced. Once an accused has admitted the
killing of a human being, the burden is on him
to establish the existence of any circumstance
which may justify the killing or at least
attenuate the offense committed. To establish
his exculpation, or the justification for the act,
he must prove such affirmative allegation by
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.

PATTERSON

V.
NEW YORK: Patterson
became estranged from his wife, Roberta. The
latter was having an affair with Northrup.
Patterson borrowed a rifle and went to the
residence of his father-in-law where he saw
Roberta in a state of semi-undress in the
presence of Northrup. He killed Northrup by
shooting him twice in the head. In New York,
the State permits a person accused of murder
to raise an affirmative defense that he acted
under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable
explanation or excuse.

DOCTRINE: Affirmative defenses constitute a

separate issue that the defendant is required
to carry the burden of persuasion. The State
need only prove the existence of the elements
constituting the offense beyond reasonable
doubt. Due process requires that only the
most
basic
procedural
safeguards
be
observed. The state is only required to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements
included in the definition of the offense
charged.
Proof
of
the
existence
or
nonexistence of affirmative defenses is not
constitutionally required.

VERGARA V. PEOPLE: Perpetual executed a

promissory note and issued postdated checks
corresponding to the amount of the loan for
each availment from the continuing credit line
granted to it by LIVECOR. Vergara issued one
of the checks in her capacity as President and
GM of Perpetual. The check was dishonored

for insufficiency of funds. LIVECOR verbally

informed Vergara of the dishonor of the check.

DOCTRINE: Under the equipoise rule, where

the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise
or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof loses. If the prosecution fails to
discharge
its
burden
of
proving
the
evidentiary facts that would establish the
prima facie presumption of knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds the constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts in favor of the
accused. In criminal cases, the prosecutions
cases must rise and fall on the strength of its
own evidence, never on the weakness of the
defense.

PEOPLE V. MADERA: Madera was charged of

two counts of rape. Madera did not present
other evidence other than his sole testimony.
Madera argued that he could not have raped
the victim since his wife and her siblings were
still awake and they were aware that he called
her to massage him. The victim identified
Madera as the accused by pointing to him
during which she was crying.

DOCTRINE: When the issue involves the

credibility of a witness, the trial courts
assessment is entitled to great weight, even
finality, unless it is shown that it was tainted
with arbitrariness or there was an oversight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. The trial court has the unique
opportunity to observe the witness firsthand
and note his or her demeanor and manner of
testifying.

PEOPLE V. TAMPOS: The rape victim testified

that Tampos penis did not penetrate her
organ. On re-direct, however, she said that
there was actual contact of the penis and her
vagina. When asked to point to the part of her
body that was touched by the penis,
complainant pointed to a part a little above

CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

4
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
the vagina. The victim clarified that Tampos
organ did not pass her vagina but only its
lower portion. She stated that it was not on
the middle but on the lower portion or on the
lower tip of the vagina.

DOCTRINE: Slight penetration of the labia by

the male organ still constitutes rape. It is
sufficient that there be entrance of the male
organ within the labia of the pudendum.
Absence of hymenal laceration does not
disprove sexual abuse especially when the
victim is of tender age. Mere touching, no
matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the
female organ by the male genital, even
without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
sufficient to consummate rape. Rupture of the
hymen or vaginal lacerations are not
necessary for rape to be consummated. An
intact hymen does not negate a finding that
the victim was raped. To commit the crime of
rape the rupture of the hymen is not
indispensable.

PEOPLE V. CUADRO: Complainant alleged on

the witness stand that Cuadro, her stepfather, on five occasions, had sexual
intercourse with her by inserting his penis in
her vagina. Cuadro denied the rape charges.
The defense insisted that the complainant's
grandmother helped the victim file this rape
case in order to force him and his commonlaw wife to separate.

DOCTRINE: The victim's actuations after the

rape and her testimony during trial bear the
earmarks of a credible witness. The conduct of
the victim immediately following the alleged
assault is of utmost importance in establishing
the truth or falsify of the charge. In rape
cases, the accused may be convicted solely
on the testimony of the victim, provided such
testimony is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Alibi is an inherently weak
defense whose value loses a lot when time

and distance do not make the imputed offense

impossible of commission.

PEOPLE V. ACA-AC: Aca-ac was charged of

rape. He contends that the way complainant
narrated the details of how she was allegedly
raped is not the way an innocent child below
12 years of age testifies, but the way a
woman, who is worldly and experienced in
sex, will testify.

DOCTRINE: Where an alleged rape victim says

she was sexually abused, she says almost all
that is necessary to show that rape had been
inflicted on her person, provided her
testimony meets the test of credibility. Denial
cannot prevail over the positive identification
and categorical testimony of complainant. The
rule is that between the positive declarations
of the prosecution witnesses and the negative
statements of the accused, the former
deserves more credence.
PRESUMPTIONS

PASCUAL V. ANGELES: Angeles and Miguel

Pascual, in behalf of his sister Ciriaca Pascual
entered into a lease agreement for a certain
parcel of land. After Ciriaca died, Miguel
inherited the same from her. Despite demands
and extensions, Angeles was still unable to
comply to pay his rent notwithstanding his
continued possession of the land. Angeles
denied
specifically
under
oath
the
genuineness and due execution of the lease
attached to the complaint.

DOCTRINE: The tenant cannot deny the title

of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant
between
them.
Moreover,
the
presumption, therefore, is that the contract
was executed for a good and sufficient
consideration.

ORMACHEA V. TRILLAMA: Ormachea filed a

collection claim against Trillana that were
engaged in a business together with Lawa as
their managing agents. Trillana executed vales
which stated that he owed the business. The
business was dissolved. Trillana claimed that
he had already paid the debt after delivering
tuba to Lawa. He presented a document
signed by Lawa stating that he had no more
debt to the partnership. The document was
dated after the dissolution of the partnership.

DOCTRINE:

Where
the
evidence
of
indebtedness is in the possession of the
creditor, it is presumed that the debt has not
been paid yet.

PEOPLE

V.
PADIERNOS: Padiernos was
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder
of her husband. She claimed that he pushed
her against the wall and he reached under the
bed for his gun. Seeing this, she pulled a knife
from under the bed, closed her eyes, and
started slashing from side to side. Nonpresentation of the written statement of a
witness to the police gave rise to the
presumption that it contained declarations
disastrous to the prosecution case.
DOCTRINE: The presumption that suppressed
evidence is unfavorable does not apply where
the evidence was at the disposal of both the
defense and the prosecution. Where the
defense fails to show their inability to acquire
and use for themselves evidence allegedly
suppressed
by
the
prosecution,
the
presumption that the allegedly suppressed
evidence is unfavorable will not apply.

YEE HEM V. UNITED STATES: Yee Hem was

arrested for possessing opium, in violation of
the Act of February 9, 1909, which prohibits
importation and possession of opium, and
which provides a presumption of guilt for mere
possession of said opium.

CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

5
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
DOCTRINE: The presumption of guilt for mere
possession of opium is constitutional. In order
that legislation presumption of one fact from
evidence of another may not constitute a
denial of due process, it is only essential that
there shall be some rational connection
between the fact provided and the ultimate
fact presumed, and that the inference of one
fact from proof of another shall not be
unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary
mandate.

COUNTY COURT V. ALLEN - Three adult

males and a sixteen year old female were
jointly tried for possession of two loaded
handguns, a loaded machine gun, and over a
pound of heroin, all discovered by the police
after being stopped for speeding. A New York
statute provides that, with certain exceptions,
the presence of a firearm in an automobile is
presumptive evidence of its illegal possession
by all persons then occupying the vehicle.

DOCTRINE: The presumption of possession is

rational because of the existence of a rational
connection between the basic facts that the
prosecution proved and the ultimate fact
presumed.

SANDSTROM V. MONTANA: Sandstrom, a

schizophrenic, was charged with deliberate
homicide for purposely or knowingly causing
Jessens death. The defense however held that
he was entitled to a lesser sentence since,
although he confessed to the crime, he did not
commit the act knowingly or purposely, as
proven by the testimonies of two mental
health experts. The judge instructed the jury
that the law presumes that a person intends
the ordinary consequences of his voluntary
acts.

DOCTRINE: In a case in which intent is an

element of the crime charged, a jury
instruction to the effect that the law

presumes that a person intends the ordinary

consequences of his voluntary acts violates
the due process requirement that the state
prove every element of a criminal offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, since the jury
might interpret the presumption as a
conclusive presumption.

PEOPLE V. CARINO: A bodyguard of Mayor

Sanchez was killed by an unknown assailant.
Cario et al. were men of Mayor Sanchez.
They alighted from a jeep and entered the
alley leading to the house. Cario et al. shot
Valentins brother.

DOCTRINE: Relationship, by itself, does not

give rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior
motive, nor does it impair the credibility of
witnesses or tarnish their testimonies. The
relationship of a witness to the victim would
even make his testimony more credible, it
being unnatural for a relative who is
interested in vindicating the crime charged
and prosecute another person other than the
real cuplrit. Relatives of victims of crimes have
a natural knack for remembering the faces of
the assailants more than anybody else, and
would be concerned with obtaining justice for
the victim by having the felon brought to
justice and meted the proper penalty. In the
absence of any improper motive on the part of
the witness, his relationship to the victim
cannot impair the weight of his testimony.