CASE NO.

5
Credibility of witnesses| Circumstantial Evidence| DNA Testing

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

G.R. No. 150224 (428 SCRA 504); May 19, 2004

FACTS
Accused-appellant was sentenced to death for the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide, and
ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim. Appellant was charged to have had carnal knowledge of a
certain Kathylyn Uba against her will, and with the use of a bladed weapon, stabbed the latter inflicting
upon her fatal injuries resulting in her untimely demise.

In the instant case, appellant raises the issue of credibility of witnesses, specifically assigning as error on
the part of the trial court, the latter’s giving of much weight to the evidence presented by the prosecution
notwithstanding their doubtfulness.

Double space
ISSUE (1)
Whether appellant’s contentions as regards the witnesses’ credibility are meritorious.

HELD: NO.
The issue regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be resolved against appellant. This
Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses
unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been
overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to
great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reexamination if not the
disturbance of the same; the reason being that the former is in a better and unique position of hearing
first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude. Absent any showing that
the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which
would affect the result of the case, the trial judge’s assessment of credibility deserves the appellate
court’s highest respect. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by improper motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

The weight of the prosecution’s evidence must be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule which
provides 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.

Double space
ISSUE (2)
Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

HELD: Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken chain
which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is the
perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three
requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Double space
ISSUE (3)
In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant 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 under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.

Is the contention of appellant tenable?

HELD: NO.
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against
self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an
admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but
as part of object evidence.

We ruled in People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly
taken from him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic examination, the hair
samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial
compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress.

Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA,
as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. Under People v. Gallarde, where immediately after the
incident, the police authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled
that there was no violation of the right against self-incrimination. The accused may be compelled to
submit to a physical examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused.