1.

Rosendo Herrera v Rosendo Alba, minor, represented by his

mother Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding
Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila
G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005
FACTS
On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent),
represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition
for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. On 7
August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he
denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied
physical contact with respondents mother.
Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to
abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented
the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos
was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught Cell
Biology. She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural
Sciences Research Institute (UP-NSRI), a DNA analysis laboratory. She
was a former professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman,
Quezon City, where she developed the Molecular Biology Program and
taught Molecular Biology. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the
process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an
accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.4
Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not
gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing
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: 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.
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: Whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether the
proffered work has been subjected to peer review, whether the rate of
error is acceptable, whether the method at issue enjoys widespread
acceptance.
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 selfincrimination 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.

2.
Estate of Rogelio Ong vs minor Joanne Rodgin Diaz,
represented by her mother and guardian, Jinky C. Diaz (G.R. no.
171713, December 17, 2007)

FACTS:
Minor Diaz filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court for compulsory
recognition with prayer for support against Rogelio Ong, she was
represented by her mother Jinky. Before the case, Jinky married a certain
Hasegawa Katsuo, a Japanese. That same year, Jinky met Rogelio, the fell
in love. The next year, Rogelio and Jinky cohabited. After four years,
Joanna was born, Rogelio recognized Joanna as his, however, that same
year, Rogelio abandoned them and stopped giving support to Joanna, he
alleged that he is not the father of Joanna, hence this petition. RTC
rendered a decision and declared the minor to be the illegitimate child of
Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child until she
reaches the age of majority. Ong opposed the CA s order to directing
the Estate and Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the
paternity of the minor Joanne. During the pendency of the case, Rogelion
Died. The Estate filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of
Appeals. 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 even if the person is whose
DNA is the subject is dead.
HELD:
Yes. The court held that The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate
the application of DNA analysis so long as there exist suitable biological
samples of his DNA. The New Rules on DNA Evidence permits the
manner of DNA testing by using biological samples--organic material
originating from the person's body, for example, 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
adequately found or would be hard to get, DNA testing, which examines
genetic codes found from body cells of the illegitimate child and any
physical remains of the long dead parent could be resorted to.

3.

People v Umanito (G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007)

FACTS:

The instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino Umanito
was found by the RTC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape. The alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant, AAA, had resulted
in her pregnancy and the birth of a child hereinafter identified as "BBB." In
view of that fact, as well as the defense of alibi raised by Umanito, the
Court deemed uncovering whether or not Umanito is the father of
BBB.With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology,
it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is
the father of AAA's child. The DNA test result shall be simultaneously
disclosed to the parties in Court. The [NBI] is, therefore, enjoined not to
disclose to the parties in advance the DNA test results. The [NBI] is further
enjoined to observe the confidentiality of the DNA profiles and all results
or other information obtained from DNA testing and is hereby ordered to
preserve the evidence until such time as the accused has been acquitted
or served his sentence. The DNA analysis on the Buccal Swabs and Blood
stained on FTA paper taken from [AAA], [BBB], and Umanito, to determine
whether or not Umanito is the biological father of [BBB], showed that
there is a Complete Match in all of the 15 loci tested between the alleles
of Umanito and [BBB]; That based on the above findings, there is
a99.9999% probability of paternity that Umanito is the biological father of
BBB. The defense admitted that if the value of the Probability of Paternity
is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
ISSUE: Whether Umanito is the biological father of [BBB].
RULING: Court resolved, for the very first time, to apply the then recently
promulgated New Rules on DNA Evidence (DNA Rules). The DNA testing
has evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as testified to by AAA
,Umanito had fathered the child she gave birth to on 5 April 1990, nine
months after the day she said she was raped by Umanito. Disputable
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted
and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section 3).The disputable
presumption that was established as a result of the DNA testing was not
contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the
accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing
(Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-markings) nor presented evidence to
rebut the same. By filing Motion to Withdraw Appeal, Umanito is deemed
to have acceded to the rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals finding
him guilty of the crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the private complainant
in the sum of P50,000.00.Given that the results of the Court-ordered DNA
testing conforms with the conclusions of the lower courts, and that no
cause is presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed below,

the Court sees no reason to deny Umanitos Motion to Withdraw Appeal.

The instant case is now CLOSED and TERMINATED.

4.
People of the Philippines vs Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino
(G.R. No. 144656 May 9, 2002)
On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola
went to her neighbors house to seek help in an assignment. It was a
Saturday. Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment. At
5pm of the same day, Daisys mom noticed that her child wasnt home
yet. She went to Vallejos house and Daisy wasnt there. 7pm, still no word
of Daisys whereabouts. The next morning, Daisys body was found tied to
a tree near a river bank. Apparently, she was raped and thereafter
strangled to death.
In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejos house to question
the latter as he was one of the last persons with the victim. But prior to
that, some neighbors have already told the police that Vallejo was acting
strangely during the afternoon of July 10. The police requested for the
clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy disappeared. Vallejo complied and
the clothes were submitted for processing.
The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic
Biologist of the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal
swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisys
body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan found that there were bloodstains in
Vallejos clothing Blood Type A, similar to that of the victim, while
Vallejos Blood Type is O.
Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejos DNA
profile.
Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the
crime. But when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was
coerced; that he was threatened by the cops; that the DNA samples
should be inadmissible because the body and the clothing of Daisy
(including his clothing which in effect is an admission placing him in the
crime scene though not discussed in the case) were already soaked in
smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted and was
sentenced to death by the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as

evidence.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are
conclusive. The court reiterated that even though DNA evidence is merely
circumstantial, it can still convict the accused considering that it
corroborates all other circumstantial evidence gathered in this rape-slay
case.
The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence
in this case and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the
Philippines, thus:
DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which contains his
or her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each persons DNA profile
is distinct and unique.
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the
crime or from the victims body for the suspects DNA. This is the evidence
sample. The evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample
taken from the suspect and the victim.
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists
between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples
collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their
profile.32 The test may yield three possible results:
1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from
different sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no
further analysis or discussion;
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether
the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a
variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some
aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be
repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive
result; or
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same
source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to be similar,
the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the
Similarity.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should
consider, among others 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.

5.
People of the Philippines vs. Federico Lucero (G.R. No.
188705. March 2, 2011)
FACTS:
Before this Court on appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00469-MIN dated December 17, 2008, which
upheld the conviction of accused Federico Lucero in Criminal Case No.
10849, decided by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch30 in Tagum City
on April 20, 2005. Before the RTC, the accused was charged with the crime
of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated July 31, 1997. In his appeal,
Lucero questions the positive identification made by witnesses Jao and
Langgoy. He insists that the witnesses were unable to see the face of the
perpetrator, and identification was made solely on the basis of thegreen
short pants worn by the suspect. He also claims that Jao did not
immediately report theidentity of the perpetrator to the police, and that
this casts doubt on the witness credibility. In his defense, he also claims
that a DNA test should have been done to match the spermatozoa found
in the victims body to a sample taken from him, and that since no DNA
test was done, he cannot be linked to the crime.
ISSUES:
(a) Was the accused denied of his rights under custodial investigation? (b)
Is he entitledto an acquittal?
RULING:
(a) Yes. The accused was denied of his rights under custodial
investigation. Accused-appellant was not informed of his rights, nor was
there a waiver of said rights. The investigating officer directly questioned
the accused which he also answered. The questioning was made in
violation of Sec. 12(1), Article III. Thus, the information elicited is
inadmissible, and the evidence Garnered as the result of that interrogation
is also inadmissible.(b) No. The Court held that even if the confession and
evidence gathered are disregarded/held in admissible, the evidence that
remains still supports the result of the conviction of accused-appellant.
Even if there are no direct evidence, in this case, it is the circumstantial
evidence that comes into play to reach a conclusion. As held in People vs.
Pascual, in crimes of rape with homicide, resort to circumstantial evidence

is usually unavoidable since 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. Under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial
evidence shall be sufficient for conviction when the ff. requisites are
complied with: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proved; (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.

6.
Edgardo A. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Tijing vs Court of
Appeals (Seventh Division) and Angelita Diamante (G.R. No.
125901, March 8, 2011)
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.
RULING:
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."
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.

7.
Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.
176389, December 14, 2010) / People of the Philippines vs.
Hubert Webb, et. al (G.R. No. 176864, December 14, 2010)
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:
1.) 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? NO.
2.) WON Alfaros testimony is entitled to belief? NO.
3.) WON Webbs evidences are proven sufficient enough to rebut Alfaros
testimony? NO.
4.) WON Biong acted to cover up the crime after its commission, thus
making himself an accessory to the crime? NO.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SET ASIDE the Decision dated
December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 0336 and Acquits accused-appellants Hubert
Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio
Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the
crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove
their guild beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful
cause.
1.)
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.
2.)
Alfaros testimony, was found doubtful. Testified by Atty. Sacaguing,
he claimed that Alfaro was an asset of the NBI since 1994. When the
officers one day teased her about being dormant, she became piqued and
suddenly claimed that she know someone who knows about the massacre.
But when the said someone was not presented, she told Sacaguing that
she might as well assume the role of her informant. Alfraro never refuted
such testimony. It is possible for Alfaro to lie even with such intricate
details, given that she practically lived in the NBI office. Moreover, the
media is all over the case that everything is thoroughly reported.
Generally, her story lacks sense or suffers from inherent inconsistencies.
3.)
Among the accused, it was Webb who presented the strongest alibi.
His travel preparations were confirmed by Rajah Tours and the Philippine
immigration, confirming that he indeed left for San Francisco, California
with his Aunt Gloria on March 9, 1991 on board United Airlines Flight 808.
His passport was stamped and his name was listed on the United Airlines
Flights Passenger Manifest. Upon reaching US, the US Immigration
recorded his entry to the country. Moreover, details of his stay there,
including his logs and paychecks when he worked, documents when he
purchased a car and his license are presented as additional evidence, and
he left for Philippines on October 26, 1992. Supreme Court accused the
trial and court of appeals as having a mind that is made cynical by the
rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangmans noose in
the faces of a witness sweaking I saw him do it. A judge, according to
the SC, must keep an open mind, and must guard against slipping into
hasty conclusion arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding
a case. For positive identification to be credible, two criteria must be met;
1.) the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible
witness 2.) the witness story of what she personally saw must be
believable, not inherently contrived. For alibi to be credible and
established on the other hand, it must be positive, clear, and documented.

It must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
the crime. Webb was able to establish his alibis credibility with his
documents. It is impossible for Webb, despite his so called power and
connections to fix a foreign airlines passenger manifest. Webbs
departure and arrival were authenticated by the Office of the US Attorney
General and the State Department.

8.
People of the Philippines vs Alfredo Pascual (G.R. No.
172326, January 19, 2009)
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?
Ruling:

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 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.

9.
FEDIL URIARTE, MANOLITO ACOSTA and JOSE ACOSTA vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 137344
FACTS:
On 15 August 1992 one Reynaldo Lamera died under mysterious
circumstances. Subsequently, for his death, petitioners Fedil Uriarte,
Manolito Acosta and Jose Acosta alias Otik were charged with murder.
However, for failure of the prosecution to indubitably prove the qualifying
circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, the trial court
found petitioners guilty only of homicide and sentenced each of them to
an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor medium as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months
of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and to pay the heirs of the

deceased P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P20,000.00 for moral

damages.
The evidence for the prosecution was principally culled from the
testimonies of Ma. Remli Cabrera Lamera, the daughter of the deceased,
Marina Lamera, widow, and Nicholas and Eric Pacheco, father and son,
both residents of a neighboring sitio and who happened to be present
when the killing took place.
The following day, 16 August 1992, at the Mata Funeral Parlor, 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 hemorrhage. However, Dr. Laurente did not
conduct an actual autopsy and her examination was limited to a visual
inspection of the body. When the widow, Marina Lamera, pointed to the
bruises at the back of her husbands body, the doctor explained that they
were mere libidity or blood clots caused by the rupture of the veins,
commonly seen in cardiac arrest cases.
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 victims family. The autopsy bore the following findings:
Hematoma, subcutaneous and intramuscular, moderate, occupying an
area of 10 x 7 cms, right thigh, middle third, posterior aspect; Hematoma,
subcutaneous 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 postero-lateral aspect of the right side of
the neck x x x x Cause of death: Traumatic neck injury.[4]
On 1 April 1993 an Information for murder was filed against Fedil Uriarte,
Manolito Acosta and Jose Acosta alias Otik alleging among others that at
about 10:00 oclock in the evening of 15 August 1992 in Purok Napo,
Barangay Bag-ong Lungsod, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, the accused,
conspiring with one another and with intent to kill, treachery and evident
premeditation feloniously attacked, boxed and beat Reynaldo Lamera with
a piece of wood, thereby inflicting upon the latter injuries on his body,
particularly a traumatic neck injury, which caused his instantaneous
death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Indeed, the resolution of the mysterious death of Reynaldo Lamera
ultimately boils down to the question of which of the conflicting versions

of the events leading to the death of Reynaldo Lamera deserves greater

weight and better entitled to the full credence. Whom to believe is a
matter of credibility and is usually best ascertained by the trial court
which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses directly and to test
their credibility by their demeanor on the stand. Thus, the general rule is
that factual findings of trial courts are accorded respect, and are not
generally disturbed on appeal. And when such findings are affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals, there is all the more reason for placing them
beyond the ambit of review by this Court.
Prosecution witnesses Eric Pacheco and Nicholas Pacheco both positively
declared that petitioners beat Lamera senselessly with a piece of wood
one (1) meter long and three (3) to four (4) inches thick. According to
them, the deadly weapon found its mark in Reynaldos back and the right
side of his neck.
The defense attempted to discredit the testimony of the two (2)
prosecution witnesses claiming that (a) their presence at the locus
criminis was highly improbable; (b) Nicholas Pacheco was an ex-convict,
thus making his testimony highly unreliable; and, (c) their story was not
corroborated by the many residents of Sitio Napo who were present during
the incident.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses find ample support in the
medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Tammy Uy, Senior Medical
Officer of the NBI. Dr. Uy testified that the victim died because of a
violent blow from a hard blunt object to the right side of the neck.
The Court of Appeals made a similar finding. It also gave an authoritative
explanation of how Dr. Laurente might have overlooked the signs of
violent death and concluded that the victim died of natural causes
Subcutaneous wounds are very deceptive on surface examination. There
may be a large ecchymosis, a black and blue spot, and but little injury to
deeper tissues, as there may be a very extensive internal injury giving no
evidence on the surface.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the deceased should have bruises apparent on
the surface of the skin as confirmation of a violent death
RULING:
Petitioners seem to have overlooked that Marina Lamera, Reynaldos wife,
had pointed out to Dr. Laurente the bruises on her husbands neck and
right thigh but Dr. Laurente brushed aside such tell-tale signs as libidity.
Thus, there were external injuries present except that the examining

physician refused to recognize them. 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.
There are however exceptions to this well-entrenched rule: (a) when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (b) when the inference is manifestly absurd, mistaken or
impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation
of facts; (d) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of
facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
and, (f) when the
Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee.
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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 27, Tandag, Surigao
del Sur, finding petitioners Fedil Uriarte, Manolito Acosta and Jose Acosta
guilty of Homicide and sentencing each of them to eight (8) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and
ten (10) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and to pay
the legal heirs of the victim P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P20,000.00
for moral damages, is AFFIRMED.

10. People vs. Lising, 285 SCRA 595 [G.R. No. 106210], (Jan. 30,
1998)

FACTS:
Manalili, thru Garcia, contracted Lising to affect the arrest of Robert
Herrera the suspect in killing his brother. Unfortunately, Lising and his
companions arrested and killed wrong persons. The trial court found the
defendants guilty of the crime of double murder qualified with treachery
and aggravated by premeditation. Garcia prays that his liability be

mitigated on grounds of lack of intent or motive, acts made under the

compulsion of an irresistible force and in the impulse of uncontrollable
fear of an equal or greater injury.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Garcia acted under the compulsion of an
irresistible force and in the impulse of uncontrollable fear.
RULING: No, Garcia did not act under the compulsion of an irresistible
force and in the impulse of uncontrollable fear. The court ruled that to be
exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it
reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but
against his will. The compulsion must be of some character as to leave the
accused no opportunity for self-defense in equal combat or for escape.
Garcia's participation and presence from the time the abduction was
hatched, up to the killing of the victims is undisputed. He was very well
aware of Manalili's plans. He was instrumental in introducing Lising to
Manalili. Likewise, Lising's intention to silence both Cochise and Beebom
at the end upon realizing an alleged mistake was known to him. He did not
do anything to deter the commission or to report the crimes immediately
thereafter. In fact, he stated that he and Lising saw each other after the
incident but never mentioned anything about it, which only goes to show
their intention of concealing the crime.

Submitted by:

Mary Grace G. Durana

M4