1995 PACADOR VS PEOPLE
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. 48 The value of this kind of
evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the
original, 49 and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the
scene at the time of the crime. 50 The photographer, however, is not the only
witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. 51 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. 52 Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness
and accuracy. 53
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.
is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to
identity of the person.
In this case, the minor's identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the writ
sought. We must first determine who between Bienvenida and Angelita is the
minor's biological mother. Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove that
two persons, initially thought of to be distinct and separate from each other, are
indeed one and the same. .
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the
modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and
expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing.
Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is
still open to challenge. The courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility
of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science
when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said
result is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to
DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt
resolution of parentage and identity issues.
The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate them.
The photographs did not capture the entire sequence of the killing of Salcedo but
only segments thereof.
2002 PEOPLE VS SAMARTINO
1961 US VS TATUM
the crime of rape with homicide for the rape-slaying of a nine-year old child,
[1] EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - PHOTOGRAPHS - ADMISSION
AND IDENTIFICATION - DISCRETION OF COURT. The admission or rejection
of photographs as evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; and
such discretion extends to the sufficiency of the identification.
[2] SAME - AUTHENTICATION - WHAT CONSTITUTES. Sufficient authentication
of a photograph to permit it to be admitted into evidence is established when
some witness, not necessarily the photographer, gives some indication as to
when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and that
the photograph accurately portrays the subject or subjects illustrated; and the
photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the
jury.
In rape with homicide, the evidence against an accused is more often than not
circumstantial. This is because the nature of the crime, where only the victim and
the rapist would have been present at the time of its commission, makes the
prosecution of the offense particularly difficult since the victim could no longer
testify against the perpetrator. Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable and
to demand direct evidence proving the modality of the offense and the identity of
the perpetrator is unreasonable.
Relative to the DNA analysis conducted by the NBI Forensic Chemist, the Court
held that the bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of appellant,
the smears taken from the victim and the strands of hair and nails taken from her
tested negative for the presence of human DNA.
The testimony of these two witnesses taken together amounted to a sufficient
authentication to warrant the admission of the photograph (both the print and the
negative) into evidence.
It is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for examination, and not the
possibility that the samples had been contaminated, which accounted for the
negative results of their examination.
2001 PP VS CARPO AND IBAO
But the vaginal swabs taken from the victim yielded positive for the presence of
human DNA. Upon analysis by experts, they showed to DNA profile of appellant.
relying on the testimony of a single witness in convicting them of multiple murder
the accused filed an Addendum to Appellant's Brief urging that the favorable
results of their lie detector tests with the NBI be admitted into the records.
The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test
inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate
means of ascertaining truth or deception.
The identity of the perpetrators, as tenaciously questioned by the accused,
depends upon the credibility of Ruben Meriales.
Indeed, the trial court is best equipped to make an assessment of witnesses,
and its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless it has
overlooked, misunderstood or disregarded important facts, which is not true in
the present case.
The mere fact that Ruben admitted harboring resentment against the Ibaos for
the murder of his brother Delfin does not confirm that he fabricated his story. His
frankness in admitting his resentment against the Ibaos should even be
considered in his favor.
It is a well-known fact that persons react differently to different situations there
may be some who will respond violently to an impending danger while there may
be others who will simply assume a cravenly demeanor. In this case, Ruben was
ruled by his fear rather than by his reason, but for this alone, his credibility should
not be doubted.
2001 TIJING VS CA
Thus, it is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for examination, and not
the possibility that the samples had been contaminated, which accounted for the
negative results of their examination.
When facts or circumstances which are proved are not only consistent with the
guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence, in its
weight and probative force, may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the
court. This is how it is in this case.
2007 PEOPLE VS UMANITO
rape
Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence.
By 2002, there was no longer any question on the validity of the use of DNA
analysis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according "official
recognition" to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of
procedures in conducting DNA analysis.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact on
jurisprudence on DNA testing:
People v. Yatar and In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In
Yatar, a match existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim
and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open court. The
Court, following Vallejo's footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because
the physical evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed
appellant guilty of rape with homicide.
petition for habeas corpus of Edgardo Tijing, Jr., allegedly the child of petitioners.
(1) Whether or not habeas corpus is the proper remedy?
(2) Whether or not Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the
same person and is the son of petitioners?
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 which the rightful custody of
any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. 12 Thus, it 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.. Rather, it is
prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. 13 It
must be stressed too that inhabeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity
In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is
not the father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The
Court ruled that a difference between the DNA profile of the convict-petitioner
and the DNA profile of the victim's child does not preclude the convictpetitioners commission of rape.
Under Section 4 of the Rules, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and
notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing. However, while this Court retains
jurisdiction over the case at bar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the
matter in controversy, t
he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily
routine, conduct hearings.
Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to the RTC for
reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties.
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order.
DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results
of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value
of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity. 55 This
refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.
The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of
any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA
testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a
showing of the following:
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the
paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without
prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses.
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
2010 PEOPLE VS CABIGQUEZ
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
results may require confirmation for good reasons;
Robbery with rape
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is
relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
specimen obtained from the vaginal swabs and submitted to the NBI failed to
match appellant's DNA profile. The commission of rape was clearly shown by
testimonial and documentary evidence; the defense submits that it is the identity
of the perpetrator which is not duly established.
DNA identification is indeed a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory
evidence.
2011 PP VS LUCERO
The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at
the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced.
Rape with Homicide
blood-stained white t-shirt and knife found in the room of accused-appellant.
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.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall 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.
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the
handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in the
records, i.e.: that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the
tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments;
that the samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all
persons in possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the
samples for tampering and explained his role in the custody of the samples and
the acts he performed in relation thereto.
2005 HERRERA VS ALBA
thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before
the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition
father denied physical contact with respondent's mother.
Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing
opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability.
An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit
A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations with
the putative father.
There are two affirmative defenses available to the putative father. The putative
father may show incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of
either physical absence or impotency. The putative father may also show that the
mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception..
While a DNA test might have been more conclusive, the cited case did not
mandate DNA testing in place of eyewitness testimony.
2011 LUCAS VS LUCAS
DNA TESTING CAN ONLY BE ORDERED AFTER THE PETITIONER
ESTABLISHES PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF FILIATION.
it would be dangerous to allow a DNA testing without corroborative proof is well
taken and deserves the Court's attention.
This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter
of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established.
a court order for blood testing is considered a "search," which, under their
Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in
order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable
possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable
cause.
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable
the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As
explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the
action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be
held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood
testing.
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the
putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the
motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or
establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing
order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example, consider
whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already
preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would
only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.
Paternity and filiation disputes can easily become credibility contests.
2004 DE VILLA VS DIR OF PRISONS
Admissibility of DNA Analysis as Evidence
Habeas corpus
Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides as follows:
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.
This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis
as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue.
In our jurisdiction, the restrictive tests for admissibility established by FryeSchwartz and Daubert-Kumho go into the weight of the evidence.
petitioner guilty of the rape
Issuance of the writ necessitates that a person be illegally deprived of his liberty.
the writ ofhabeas corpus cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered
by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not
deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the
proceedings.
In fine, petitioner invokes the remedy of habeas corpus in order to seek the
review of findings of fact long passed upon with finality. This relief is far outside
the scope ofhabeas corpus proceedings.