Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.

M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

1) Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, minor represented by his mother

Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judges,
Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila (G.R. No. 148220, June 15,
2005)
In May 1998, Armi Alba, mother of minor Rosendo Alba filed a suit against Rosendo
Herrera in order for the latter to recognize and support Rosendo as his biological son.
Herrera denied Armis allegations. In the year 2000, the trial court ordered the parties
to undergo a (deoxyribonucleic acid )DNA testing to establish whether or not Herrera
is indeed the biological father of Rosendo Alba. However, Herrera questioned the
validity of the order as he claimed that DNA testing has not yet garnered widespread
acceptance hence any result therefrom will not be admissible in court; and that the
said test is unconstitutional for it violates his right against self-incrimination.

ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera is correct.

HELD: No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA
testing is not yet recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned
the order of the trial court, the prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in
2002 there is already no question as to the acceptability of DNA test results as
admissible object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the case
of People vs Vallejo (2002).
In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA analysis as admissible
evidence. On the other hand, as to determining the weight and probative value of
DNA test results, the Supreme Court provides, which is now known as the Vallejo
Guidelines:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data:
1) how the samples were collected,
2) how they were handled,
3) the possibility of contamination of the samples,
4) the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
5) whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests,
6) and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine adopted from US
jurisprudence (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) The Daubert Test is a
test to be employed by courts before admitting scientific test results in evidence. More
specifically, the Daubert Test inquires:
1) Whether the theory or technique can be tested,
2) Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
3) Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
4) Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before paternity
inclusion can be had, the DNA test result must state that the there is at least a 99.9%
probability that the person is the biological father. However, a 99.9% probability of
paternity (or higher but never possibly a 100% ) does not immediately result in the
DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does not
automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this case Herrera,
is the biological father of the child (Alba). Such result is still a disputable or a refutable
evidence which can be brought down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with.
What if the result provides that there is less than 99.9% probability that the alleged
father is the biological father?
Then the evidence is merely corroborative.
Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not violative of the
right against self-incrimination. The right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition
on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial
evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when
it may be material. There is no testimonial compulsion in the getting of DNA sample
from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

2) Estate Of Rogelio Ong Vs Joanne Rodgin Diaz (G.R. No. 171713

December 17 2007)
FACTS:
The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and Joanne
Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the minor Joanne. Trial
court formerly rendered a decision and declared the minor to be the illegitimate child
of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child until she reaches
the age of majority. Rogelio died during the pendency of the case with the CA. The
Estate filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead
person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as
current jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of
settling the present paternity dispute."

ISSUE:
Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.

RULING:
Yes.
The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as
long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA
Evidence allows the conduct of DNA testing by using biological samples--organic
material originating from the person's body, ie., blood, saliva, other body fluids,
tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic materials- that is susceptible to DNA testing.

In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or

would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from
body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent
could be resorted to. (People vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs Comelec 424 SCRA 277)
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

3) People of the Philippines v. Rufino Umanito (26 Oct 2007)

FACTS
Around 9PM, private complainant AAA was accosted by a young male (whom she later
knew as Umanito). He waited for her by the creek, and he pointed as knife at her
abdomen. He dragged her into the Home Economics Building of Daramuangan
Elementary School. He undressed her while still holding the knife. He set her down on
a bench, put down the knife, and had sex with her. He dressed up and threatened to
kill her if she reported the incident. Six months later, AAA s mother noticed the
prominence on her stomach, and it was then that she divulged to her mother the
alleged rape. Her mother brought her to the police station. (Umanito s alibi: He was
at home all day. Re: AAA, he admitted that he courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured that she had a crush on him since she frequently visited him.)
RTC rendered judgment against Umanito and sentenced him to suffer
reclusion perpetua. Umanito s appeal was transferred to the CA for intermediate
review (as per Mateo ruling), and CA affirmed RTC. Umanito seeks acquittal on
reasonable doubt, with the belated filing of the case and AAA s questionable
credibility as grounds. He also said that AAA filed the complaint only upon her mother
s insistence; this supports his claim that AAA had sex with another (a married man).
Also, he claimed that there were several inconsistencies in her assertions.
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE RTC FOR RECEPTION OF DNA EVIDENCE

RATIO
The fact that AAA bore a child because of the purported rape may provide the
definitive key to Umanito s absolution, since it can now be determined with
reasonable certainty WON he is the father of her child. AAA and her child are directed
to submit themselves to DNA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence
(AM No. 06-11-5-SC) which took effect on 15 Oct 2007 (a few days before
promulgation of this case).
DNA print / identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective
means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where
biological evidence is available. The groundwork for acknowledging the strong weight
of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba discussed DNA analysis
as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our jurisdiction. Tecson
v. COMELEC said that in case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to
establish, DNA testing could be resorted to.
The determination of WON Umanito is the father (through DNA testing) is
material to the fair and correct adjudication of his appeal. Under Sec. 4 of AM No. 06-
11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to
order a DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be more
appropriate that the case be remanded to RTC for reception of evidence.
The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due
regard to the standards set. RTC should order the DNA testing if it finds it to be
feasible in this case. RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the testing, and
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice. After the DNA analysis
is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to
offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence, which shall be assessed by
RTC in keeping with Sections 7 (Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence) and
8 (Reliability of DNA testing methodology). RTC is also enjoined to observe
confidentiality and preservation of DNA evidence.
To facilitate the execution of this resolution, although the parties are primarily
bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced by SC if
needed.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

4) [G.R. No. 144656. May 9. 2002] People of the Philippines vs. Gerrico
S. Vallejo.
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Gerrico S. Vallejo moves for a reconsideration of the decision of
the Court, dated May 9, 2002, affirming the death sentence imposed on him by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, for the rape-slay of a nine-year old child,
Daisy D. Diolola, in Rosario, Cavite on July 10, 1999.
Accused-appellant contends among others that the DNA evidence presented by the
prosecution is unreliable, the DNA test being nothing but "junk science."
Most of the issues raised by accused-appellant have already been passed upon by this
Court in its decision. Nevertheless, they will be discussed again in view of the gravity
of the offense of which accused-appellant has been found guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DNA evidence is reliable.
HELD:
Yes.
"The Philippines has now the facility and expertise in using DNA test by STR analysis
for identification and for paternity testing. It will be of tremendous help in declogging
the courts of civil cases involving paternity suits if DNA tests are accepted. DNA tests
can also be used to exonerate innocent individuals in rape cases and other violent
crimes where human tissues are left in scenes of crime. It is respectfully proposed
that the justice system accept DNA tests as a reliable investigative tool for forensic
purposes." (The Court Systems Journal, vol. 4, p. 47 (1999))
There is another DNA testing laboratory at the National Bureau of Investigation. As
NBI Forensic Chemist Magsipoc testified, the combined use of human resources and
machines greatly minimize or eliminate the possibility of error in DNA testing (TSN,
Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, January 18, 2000, pp. 16, 30-31).
The foregoing considerations, taken together with the other circumstantial evidence
pointed out at pages 14 to 16 of the decision in this case, especially the DNA profile
found in the vaginal swabs taken from the victim which matched the DNA profile of
accused-appellant, prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt.
Thus, DNA evidence presented by a prosecution is a reliable proof.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

5) [G.R. No. 188705. March 2, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO LUCERO,
Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
Before this Court on appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the
conviction of accused Federico Lucero with the crime of Rape with Homicide.
It was on June 7, 1997, at around 2 oclock the morning when the witness Jao, Purok
Leader, saw the accused coming from the victims house being chased by neighor after
he raped the victim who died after sustaining stab wound. AAA, the victim, was then
brought to the Tagum Doctors Hospital where she was declared "dead on arrival."
Dr. Rodaje, NBI Medico Legal Officer, prepared the autopsy on the body of the victim,
and found several stab wounds and contusions, with one stab wound penetrating the
heart, causing her death.14 His examination also found hymenal lacerations, after
which he performed the vaginal swabbing to see if there was still seminal fluid in the
vaginal canal.
The findings in the autopsy report indicated the following injuries: Contusion,
Contused-abrasions, Hematoma, Incised wound, Hymenal laceration. CAUSE OF
DEATH: STAB WOUNDS

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused Federico Lucero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Rape with Homicide.

HELD:
Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence shall be
sufficient for conviction when the following requisites are complied with: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All the circumstances must be consistent with
one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided that the circumstances
proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that point to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person.
The identification of an accused by an eyewitness is a vital piece of evidence and most
decisive of the success or failure of the case for the prosecution. But even while
significant, an eyewitness identification, which authors not infrequently would
describe to be "inherently suspect," is not as accurate and authoritative as the
scientific forms of identification evidence like by fingerprint or by DNA testing.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

6) [G.R. No. 125901. March 8, 2001]

EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS (Seventh Division) and ANGELITA DIAMANTE, respondents.

FACTS:
Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover
their youngest child, Edgardo Jr., whom they did not see for 4 years. Trial court
granted the petition and ordered Angelita Diamante to immediately release the child,
now named John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn him over to his parents. CA reversed
and set aside the decision rendered by the lower court. It questioned the propriety of
the habeas corpus in this case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not habeas corpus is the proper remedy to regain custody of the minor.

HELD:
Yes. SC upheld the decision of the trial court. The writ of habeas corpus extends to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by the rightful custody of any person withheld from the persons entitled
thereto. The writ of habeas corpus is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to
regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person
of his own free will. It must be stressed out that in habeas corpus proceeding, the
question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumption,
including those as identity of the person.

The trial court was correct in its judgment based on the evidence established by the
parents and by the witness who is the brother of the late common-law husband of
Angelita. Furthermore, there are no clinical records, log book or discharge from the
clinic where John Thomas was allegedly born were presented. Strong evidence directly
proves that Thomas Lopez, Angela's "husband", was not capable of siring a child.
Moreover, his first marriage produced no offspring even after almost 15 years of living
together with his legal wife. His 14 year affair with Angelita also bore no offspring.

The birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez were attended by irregularities. It was filed
by Thomas Lopez, the alleged father. Under Sec. 4, Act No. 3753 (Civil Register Law),
the attending physician or midwife in attendance of the birth should cause the
registration of such birth. Only in default of the physician or midwife, can the parent
register the birth of his child. Certificate must be filed with the LCR within 30 days
after the birth. The status of Thomas and Angelita on the birth certificate were typed
in as legally married, which is false because Angelita herself had admitted that she is
a "common-law wife."
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

Trial court also observed several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both
in court, the two had strong similarities in their faces. Resemblance between a minor
and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage.
Lastly, the spouses presented clinical records and testimony of the midwife who
attended Bienvenida's childbirth.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

7) [G.R. No. 176389, G.R. No. 176864. December 14, 2010]

People of the Philippines vs Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano,
Machael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter
Estrada, and Gerardo Biong

FACTS:
On June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were
brutally murdered in their home in Paraaque. In an intense investigation, a group of
suspects were initially arrested by the police, but were eventually discharged due to
suspicions of frame up. Later in 1995, The National Bureau of Investigation announced
the resolution of the crime as they presented a star witness Jessica M. Alfaro who
pointed at the accused (herein appellants) Webb et.al. as the main culprits. She also
included police officer Gerardo Biong as an accessory to the crime. Relying on Alfaros
testimony, information for rape with homicide was filed by the public prosecutors
against appellants.

Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City Branch 274 presided over by Judge
Tolentino took over the case. With Alfaros detailed narration of the events of the
crime, the court found her testimony credible, noting that her delivery are
spontaneous and straightforward. On January 4, 2000, trial court rendered judgment
finding accused (herein appellants) guilty as charged, imposing them the penalty of
reclusion perpetua while Biong, as an accessory to the crime, was given an
indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months and one day to twelve years.
Damages were also awarded to Lauro Vizconde.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, with a modification
on Biongs penalty to six years minimum and twelve years maximum, plus increased
awards of damages to Lauro Vizconde. A motion for reconsideration on the same court
was also denied, hence the present appeal on the Supreme Court.

On April 20, 2010, the Court granted the request of Webb to submit the semen
specimen taken from Carmelas cadaver on DNA analysis, believing it is under the
safekeeping of the NBI. The NBI, however, denied that the specimen is under their
custody and that it was turned over to the trial court. The trial court on the other
hand, denied the claim that the specimen was under their care. This prompted Webb
to file an urgent motion to acquit denying Webb of his right to due process.

ISSUE:
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

Whether or not Webb was indeed denied of due process on the premise that the
semen specimen was lost under the care of the government and must immediately
be acquitted?

HELD:
No. Webb cited Brady v. Maryland, and claimed that he is entitled to outright acquittal
on the ground of violation of his right to due process given the States failure to
produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willfull suppression the semen
specimen taken from Carmela. Webb is not entitled to acquittal for failure to produce
the semen specimen at such stage. Brady v. Maryland was overtaken by the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Youngblood which 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. Further, during the previous appeals made on CA, the appellants expressed
lack of interest in having a DNA test done, and so the State cannot be deemed put on
reasonable notice that it may be required to be produced some future time.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

8) [G. R. No. 172326. January 19, 2009]

People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Pascual y Ildefonso

FACTS:
Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. was preparing to celebrate noche buena with his son and that
accused-appellant (who appeared to be already drunk) was also there together with
his child; that accused-appellant stayed with them up to 1:00 a.m. of December 25;
that during the course of his stay with the group, accused-appellant left twice to go
inside the house but kept on coming back to continue drinking; that when accused-
appellant left for the third time, he did not come back anymore leaving him (Jundos)
alone as his son. Some 20 minutes later, accused-appellants wife, Divina, asked him
about the whereabouts of the accused-appellant. Having failed to locate accused-
appellant, Divina went back inside the house. Soon after, Jundos saw Divina chasing
Alfredo running out towards the gate at the same time asked (sic) Jundos for help
saying Kuya, tulungan mo ako, si Boyet (referring to Alfredo Pascual)). Thinking that
Alfredo Pascual was making trouble, Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. joined the chase but could
not catch up as Alfredo was running very fast. So Divina told him to instead go upstairs
as the accused might have done something wrong to Ling-ling.

Together, Jundos and Divina rushed to the second floor. As the place was dark, they
switched on the light and there they saw Ling-ling (Lorelyn Pacubas) flat on her back
on the floor almost naked with arms and legs open, her panty and shorts down to her
ankle and t-shirt pulled up above the breast with blood on the right breast. They tried
to wake up Ling-ling but the latter was already dead. Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. was shocked
at what he saw.

ISSUE:
Was appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide?

HELD:
Yes. It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the
rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard,
we have held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally
unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes
even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed
because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as
here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.

Considering that no one witnessed the commission of the crime charged herein, the
weight of the prosecutions evidence must then be appreciated in light of the well-
settled rule that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest
long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove
beyond doubt that the accused committed the crime.

Verily, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the

circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that
accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Thus, a
judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when
the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit.

Here, the circumstances testified to by the prosecution witnesses lead to the inevitable
conclusion that the accused-appellant is the author of the crime charged.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

9) [G.R.No.137344. January 30, 2001]

FEDIL URIARTE, MANOLITO ACOSTA and JOSE ACOSTA, petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS:
On 5 August 1993, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in Purok Napo, Bag-ong
Lungsod, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Ma. Remli Cabrera saw her father Reynaldo Lamera
outside the house of a neighbor talking with a certain Dodong Fernandez, another
neighbor. Remli asked her father to keep her company since she was alone in the
house at the time. But Reynaldo told her just to stay home as he was still waiting for
her mother to arrive from a Girl Scout's seminar. Alter, Remli noticed her father talking
with a certain Munding Poria in the yard of another neighbor, Ernani Apacible. That
was the last time she saw her father alive. On 15 August 1993, Eric Pacheco happened
to be in Purok Napo looking for his friend Diego. From an electric post some ten (10)
meters away, he saw petitioners Fedil Uriarte, Manolito Acosta and Jose Acosta taking
turns mauling Reynaldo Lamera. Jose Acosta punched Reynaldo several times in the
back, then got a piece of wood one (1) meter in length and three (3) to four (4) inches
thick and struck Reynaldo on the thigh. As a consequence, Reynaldo fell to the ground.
Manolito and Jose propped him up and continued to maul him, with Manolito landing
several fist blows in the stomach of Reynaldo and bashed him on the right side of the
neck below the ear with the piece of wood Jose had used. Munding Poria, a neighbor,
lifted the already lifeless body of Reynaldo and place it on a coconut bench. Then,
together with Rollie Olvida, Dodong Fernandez and Boy Tulang, Munding brought the
body to the Lamera residence.
Dr. Jocelyn Laurente of the Provincial Hospital of Surigao del Sur examined the body
of Reynaldo Lamera and concluded that he died of "cardio-pulmonary arrest
secondary to CVA hemmorrhage."2 However, Dr. Laurente did not conduct an actual
autopsy and her examination was limited to a visual inspection of the body.Unsatisfied
with the results, Marina then wrote a letter to the NBI Regional Office No. XI
requesting for an autopsy.
Three (3) months later, NBI Regional Director Sancho K. Tan ordered the exhumation
and autopsy of the body of Reynaldo Lamera. Dr. Tammy Uy, medico-legal officer of
the NBI, was assigned to conduct the autopsy, which was done on 3 December 1992
in the presence of other NBI staff members and the victim's family. The autopsy bore
the following findings: Hematoma, subcutaneous and intramuscular, moderate,
occupying a area of 10 x 7 cms, right thigh, middle third, posterior asopect;
Hematoma, subscutaneous and intramuscular, moderate, occupying an area of 5.5 x
3 cms. Located along the vertebral column, lumbar region; Hematoma, subcutaneous
and intramuscular, massive, about 100 cc. of embalmed blood, occupying an area of
8 x 5 cms., located at the lower portion of the right mastoid region and upper
posterolateral aspect of the right side of the neck Cause of death: Traumatic neck
injury.
On 1 April 1993 an Information for murder was filed against Fedil Uriarte, Manolito
Acosta and Jose alias Otik
ISSUE:
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest
WON the findings of Dr. Uy in his exhumation is permissible as evidence in determining
Renaydo Lameras death?
HELD:
The fact that Dr. Uy had to peel off areas of the skin did not negate the presence of
surface bruises. Dr. Uy testified that when he exhumed the body, it had already
discolored such that surface bruises would not necessarily be apparent. Therefore,
the reason why he had to conduct subcutaneous examination was not because of the
absence of bruises on the skin surface but because the discoloration of the skin had
obscured such bruises. It is also important to note that Dr. Laurente was never
presented as a witness. Therefore, it would be incredulous to accept petitioners'
assertion that Dr. Lamera's findings should be given more weight than those of Dr.
Uy.
It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence by the parties all over
again. Our jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of law that might have
been committed by the Court of Appeals. A fortiori, where the factual findings of the
trial court are affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, there is great reason for not
disturbing such findings and for regarding them as not reviewable by this Court.
Both courts below were thoroughly and morally convinced of the guilt of petitioners.
We see no reason to disturb such finding. All told, petitioners have failed to show the
existence of circumstances that would warrant the reversal of the challenged Decision
of the Court of Appeals
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

10) [G.R. No. 106210-11. January 30, 1998]

People of the Philippines vs. ROBERTO RAMBO LISING, RODOLFO
MANALILI, FELIMON GARCIA, ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA, accused-
appellants.
FACTS:
On March, 1990, Rodolfo Manalili, a businessman asked Felimon Garcia, his townmate,
if he knew somebody who could allegedly effect the arrest of one Robert Herrera, the
suspect in the killing of his brother, Delfin Manalili. April 21, 1990, Felimon Garcia
called up Manalili and informed him that he already contacted a policeman to help
him and said that the policeman wanted to talk to him.So an appointment was set at
12:00 p.m. of April 22, 1990 at Dau Exit, North Expressway, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Felimon Garcia introduced Roberto Lising, Enrico Dizon and another man armed with
a service pistol to Manalili. During the meeting, Manalili gave themP2,000.00 and
instructed them to go and see Vic Nabua,* his employee who will point to them the
person to be arrested.

On April 23-24, Lisings group went to Quezon City but failed to spot Herrera. Then on
April 25, the same group arrived at the vicinity of the Castaos residence at around
5:00 p.m. to resume their surveillance. Two hours later, Lisboa alerted the group after
allegedly spotting Herrera entering the Castaos residence. They followed the man and
woman who happened to be Cochise and Beebom. Alighting from the car, they were
accosted by Dizon and Manga who were both carrying firearms. Amidst protestations,
Dizon poked his gun at Cochise, handcuffed him, and shoved him into the car. Beebom
protested loudly at the arrest and was also shoved into the back of the car and both
are kidnapped and illegally detained.

ISSUE:
Whether or not extrajudicial statements are admissible as evidence.

HELD:

Extrajudicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against their respective

declarants, pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to
a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. This is based upon the
presumption that no man would declare anything against himself, unless such
declarations were true. A mans act, conduct and declarations wherever made,
provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to
presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not. There
is no question that their respective extrajudicial statement of Manalili and Garcia were
executed voluntarily. They were assisted by their counsel and properly sworn to before
a duly authorized officer. They merely relied on their extra-judicial statements and did
not take the witness stand during the trial.
Faelnar, Sheena Rhea T.
M5 Legal Medicine
Case Digest

No doubt that the statements were independently executed and rather identical with
each other in their material details. There are also distinct similarities in the narration
of events leading to the killings of Cochise and Beebom. Nonetheless, the trial courts
decision, in convicting all the accused was based not on the aforesaid extrajudicial
statements of the accused alone but mainly on the eyewitness account of the two
witnesses, Froilan Olimpia and Raul Morales, which the trial court gave weight and
credence as bearing the chime of truth and honesty. Well-established is the rule that
the trial courts evaluation of the credit-worthiness of the testimony given before it by
witnesses should be accorded great respect.