EVIDENCE 1

Rules of Admissibility – Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

PEOPLE v. YATAR
May 19, 2004 | PER CURIAM

Appellee: People of the Philippines

Appellant: Joel Yatar alias “Kawit“

Doctrine: Extraction of DNA from the accused to be used as evidence in trial does not violate the
accused’s right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the
Constitution. 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.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following
factors: 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, and 6) the qualification of the analyst who conducted
the tests.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): DNA evidence admissible; intestines of rape victim protruding out of her
stomach
FACTS: Kathylyn was left in her grandmother’s house alone. When her grandmother returned, she found
Kathylyn lifeless, naked and her intestenes protruding out of her stomach. Witnesses testified that they
saw in the house where Kathylyn stayed at the time she was alone. Accused was questioned by the
police and tried to escape while in police custody. Yatar was charged with rape with homicide and was
found guilty by the trial court, imposing on him the penalty of death. Among the pieces of evidence
produced by the prosecution was DNA evidence that shows that the semen found in Kathylyn’s vagina
matches Yatar’s DNA. Yatar assailed the trial court’s decision to give much weight to the prosecution’s
evidence and also claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when his DNA was used against him
in the trial.

HELD: The court upheld the decision of the trial court. The DNA evidence is admissible. 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. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving
that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. Aside from being relevant, the
introduction of DNA evidence did not violate accused’s constitutional rights to remain silent and against
self-incrimination. 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.

FACTS
● Kathylyn (victim) lived in the house of her grandmother, Isabel Dawang. On June 30, 1998,
Kathylyn was left alone in the house as her relatives went for their farm in Nagbitayan. The
relatives left at 9AM.
● 10 AM the same day - The witness Anita and one Beverly stopped by the victim’s house to drink
water. They saw the accused Yatar who, when asked, told them that he was there to get lumber.
● 12:30 PM - Judilyn, one of the victim’s relatives who went to their farm, was on her way home (to
her own house) when she saw Yatar descend from the second floor of Isabel Dawang’s house
and run towards the back of the house. She then noticed Yatar pacing back and forth. She did not
find this unusual as Yatar and his wife used to live in that house.
● 1:30 PM – Judily saw accused again, now wearing black, when she called her near her house.
She noticed Yatar’s eyes were “reddish and sharp“. Yatar asked Judilyn where is her husband as
he is going to tell him something important but when the husband came, Yatar left and went back
to Isabel Dawang’s house.

Orjalo | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Rules of Admissibility – Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

● In the evening, Isabel Dawang arrived home and the house was without lights. She went up the
ladder to the second floor to check on her granddaughter but she found that the door was tied
with a rope. Isabel groped in the darkness to find a knife and while doing this, she felt a cold
lifeless body. Isabel found out that it was her granddaughter. She called for help. Judilyn and her
husband came with a flashlight and they saw Kathylyn naked, her intestines protruding out of her
stomach.
● The police received a report about Kathylyn’s death and went to Isabel Dawang’s house.

○ The people in the vicinity informed the police officers that Yatar was seen going down the
ladder of the house of Isabel Dawang at approximately 12:30 p.m. The police discovered
the victim’s panties, brassiere, denim pants, bag and sandals beside her naked cadaver
at the scene of the crime, and they found a dirty white shirt splattered with blood within 50
meters from the house of Isabel.
● The police questioned Yatar, he denied any knowledge of Kathylyn’s death but nevertheless,
Yatar was placed under police custody.
○ While in police custody, Yatar deceived the police into believing that he was just going to
the toilet to relieve himself but then the police heard someone shout that the accused
was running away so they immediately recaptured him. Accused was then charged with
rape with homicide.
● The trial court convicted Yatar of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.
● In this case, Yatar argues that the TC erred in giving weight to the evidence presented by the
prosecution and in not finding existence of reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N the trial court erred when it gave much weight to the evidence presented by the
prosecution – NO
 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.

o Rigor mortis of the vicitm’s body was complete when Dr. Bartolo examined the victim at
9:00 a.m. on July 1, 1998. According to him, the estimated time of death was sometime
between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on June 30, 1998. This was within the timeframe within
which the lone presence of appellant lurking in the house of Isabel Dawang was testified
to by witnesses.
o Although the Postmortem Report by the attending physician, Dr. Bartolo, indicates that no
hymenal lacerations, contusions or hematoma were noted on the victim. Nevetheless, Dr.
Bartolo discovered the presence of semen in the vaginal canal of the victim.
 Dr. Bartolo stated that the introduction of semen into the vaginal canal could only
be done through sexual intercourse with the victim.
o It is apparent from the pictures submitted by the prosecution that the sexual violation of
the victim was manifested by a bruise and some swelling in her right forearm indicating
resistance to the appellant’s assault on her virtue.

o Significantly, subsequent testing showed that the DNA of the sperm specimen
from the vagina of the victim was identical semen to that of appellant’s gene type.

[MAIN] SUB-ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in appreciating the DNA evidence – NO
 Because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA,
with the notable exception of identical twins.
 DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a
suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has
been left.

Orjalo | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 3
Rules of Admissibility – Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

 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. 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. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there
was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. 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.
 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following
factors:
o 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, and
6) the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
 In the case at bar, Dr. de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on
DNA print or identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungria’s testimony, it was determined that
the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of
examination.
 The Court used US jurisprudence (Daubert v. Merrel Dow) to justify that pertinent evidence based
on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. In said case,
DNA typing was one of new kinds of scientific techniques allowed to be introduced in trial.

o Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, 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.

 [MAIN]SUB-SUB-ISSUE: W/N use of Yatar’s DNA in this case violated his right against self-
incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution – NO

o 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.

o People v. Rondero: Although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly
taken from him and submitted to the NBI 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.

o Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin,

blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved.

o It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself for blood sampling
which was conducted in open court on March 30, 2000, in the presence of counsel.

 SUB-SUB-ISSUE: W/N the DNA tests conducted by the prosecution against Yatar are
unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application of an
ex-post facto law – NO

o 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

Orjalo | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 4
Rules of Admissibility – Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence

Court. Whereas an ex-post facto law refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling
requires a factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence presented.

ADDITIONAL:
 Appellant’s twin defense of denial and alibi cannot be sustained. The forensic DNA evidence and bloodied shirt,
notwithstanding the eyewitness accounts of his presence at Isabel Dawang’s house during the time when the crime was
committed, undeniably link him to the June 30, 1998 incident. He lives within a one hundred (100) meter radius from the
scene of the crime, and requires a mere five minute walk to reach one house from the other. This fact severely weakens
his alibi.
 The Court also found stated that as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.
Nevertheless, motive was found in this case.
o Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousing, testified that a few days before the victim was raped and killed, Kathylyn told
her of Yatar’s attempt to rape the latter.
o Judilyn also testified that Yatar threatened their family when Yatar’s wife, Judilyn’s aunt, separated from him.
According to Judilyn, Yatar threatened to kill all her wife’s family and relatives if she leaves him.
 All the elements of the crime charged were present in this case. Proof of violence and intimidation were dispensed with in
this case since moral ascendancy of the accused (being 7 years older and the husband of victim’s aunt) was shown. The
Court added that absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender
age.

RULING: Accused found guilty and sentenced to death. DNA evidence admissible.

Orjalo | A2022
September 19, 2020