People vs Velarde

Velarde was accused of the homicide and rape of his first cousin Brenda. He was convicted on the basis
of his extrajudicial confession (which he alleges was forced out of him via torture), and circumstantial
evidence. The circumstantial evidence included testimonies of witnesses that they were seen aboard a
pedicab together, and that he was later seen alone with his hair disheveled emerging from a repair shop
near where the corpse of the victim was later found (See Note 1). He was convicted. Hence this
automatic review.

Whether the extrajudicial confession was admissible? –NO

It was found that the “counsel” Velarde was said to have been assisted by when he was executing his
extrajudicial confession was actually the Mayor of Malolos. The Mayor cannot be considered competent
and independent counsel at the time because as mayor he exercised "operational supervision and
control" over the PNP unit in that municipality. His duties were inconsistent with those of his
responsibilities to Velarde, who was already incarcerated and tagged as the main suspect in the rape-
slay case. Serving as counsel of Velarde placed him in direct conflict with his duty of "operational
supervision and control" over the police. The extrajudicial confession executed without competent and
independent counsel should thus be disregarded.

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented were sufficient to convict Velarde? –NO

Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction if

(a) there is more than one circumstance,

(b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven, and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.

These circumstances must be consistent with one another, and the only rational hypothesis that can be
drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They must create a solid chain of events, coherent
and intrinsically believable, that point to the accused — to the exclusion of others — as the perpetrator
of the crime; and that sufficiently overcome thereby the presumption of innocence in his or her favor.

In this case, the SC found that circumstantial evidence presented were not sufficient as they were also
consistent with the hypothesis that Velarde was innocent:

He cannot be faulted for being seen with Brenda on a pedicab, since the records show that the
two of them are first cousins who live in the same house. He cannot be faulted, either, for
emerging near Doña Pilar Homes, since the records show that he lives in Barangay Tikay, at the
back of which is Doña Pilar Homes. As Prosecution Witness Robles testified, she also lived in
Barangay Tikay, yet she waited for a jeepney in front of Doña Pilar Homes. Evidently, it is natural
for residents of Barangay Tikay to emerge in Doña Pilar Homes and wait for a ride from there.
Appellant cannot be convicted based on the circumstantial evidence which, though proven,
remains ambiguous

Notes
 1.) The victim was found in vacant lot in Dona Pilar Homes. Velarde was seen alone emerging from
Jaycee Auto Repair Shop, just beside Doña Pilar Homes.

People vs Yatar

Yatar was charged and convicted of Rape with Homicide committed against deceased Kathlyn Uba. The
evidence presented in the lower court were DNA evidence matched from the semen found in the
victim’s body (as against blood samples extracted from him) and other circumstantial evidence. Hence
this automatic review.

Whether DNA evidence is admissible in the Phils? –YES

Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar (See Note 1), the DNA
evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the
court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human
genetics and molecular biology.

Whether the usage of blood samples extracted from Yatar for DNA testing was a violation against self
incrimination? –NO

In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, Yatar contends that the blood sample taken from him as
well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right against
self- incrimination. The SC does not agree. The right against self incrimination is simply against the legal
process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. Hence, a person may be
compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no
testimonial compulsion involved.

Whether the usage of DNA testing is an application of an ex-post fact law? –NO

No ex-post facto law is involved in the case at bar. The science of DNA typing involves the admissibility,
relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules of Court. Whereas an expost facto law
refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative
weight of the evidence presented.

Notes

1.) In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 33 it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid
principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were
allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, including the
introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure.
2.) Re: Discussion on DNA evidence:
a. DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. 23 A
person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person's
lifetime; the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat,
bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal
 cells. 24 Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no
two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins.
b. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate
one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used. 26 Incidents involving
sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, or
saliva which can be left on the victim's body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from
clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the victim's body
during the assault. 27 Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was
physical contact between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim,
crime scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the
suspect at the scene of the crime.
c. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the
following factors:
i. how the samples were collected,
ii. how they were handled,
iii. the possibility of contamination of the samples,
iv. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
v. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests, and
vi. the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
3.) Other circumstantial evidence presented:
a. (1) Appellant and his wife were living in the house of Isabel Dawang together with the
victim, Kathylyn Uba;
b. (2) In June 1998, appellant's wife left the house because of their frequent quarrels;
c. (3) Appellant received from the victim, Kathylyn Uba, a letter from his estranged wife in
the early morning on June 30, 1998;
d. (4) Appellant was seen by Apolonia Wania and Beverly Denneng at 1:00 p.m. of June 30,
1998 near the kitchen of the house of Isabel Dawang, acting strangely and wearing a
dirty white shirt with collar;
e. (5) Judilyn Pas-a saw appellant going down the ladder of the house of Isabel at 12:30
p.m., wearing a dirty white shirt, and again at 1:30 p.m., this time wearing a black shirt;
f. (6) Appellant hurriedly left when the husband of Judilyn Pas-a was approaching;
g. (7) Salmalina Tandagan saw appellant in a dirty white shirt coming down the ladder of
the house of Isabel on the day Kathylyn Uba was found dead;
h. (8) The door leading to the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang was tied by a
rope;
i. (9) The victim, Kathylyn Uba, lay naked in a pool of blood with her intestines protruding
from her body on the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang, with her stained
pants, bra, underwear and shoes scattered along the periphery;
j. (10) Laboratory examination revealed sperm in the victim's vagina (Exhibit "H" and "J");
k. (11) The stained or dirty white shirt found in the crime scene was found to be positive
with blood;
l. (12) DNA of slide, Exhibit "J" and "H", compared with the DNA profile of the appellant
are identical; and
 m. (13) Appellant escaped two days after he was detained but was subsequently
apprehended, such flight being indicative of guilt.

People vs Adoviso

Adoviso was charged and convicted in the lower courts of committing murder as against Emetrio and
Rufino (Emetrio’s grandson). Adoviso was convicted on the basis of the positive identification of
Bonifacio (Emetrio’s son) and Elmer (Bonifacio’s son). Adoviso was alleged to have shot the victims at
night with 4 other men, but Adoviso was the only one identified as he was the only one without a mask.
Adoviso’s defense included alibi and a polygraph test. As mentioned previously, he was convicted, hence
this appeal.

Whether the polygraph test may be given evidentiary weight? –NO

American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the
purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the
prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. The rule is no different
in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit should not be vested
upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this case, has not advanced any reason why
this rule should not apply to him.

Notes

1.) Re: Polygraph Test - A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously

measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be
involuntarily caused by an examinee's conscious attempt to deceive the questioner. The theory
behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that a person who lies deliberately will have a rising
blood pressure and a subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the graph.
However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in
evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime,
whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has
not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth
or deception. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that
much faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive.
Appellant, in this case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to him.