King Bryan I.

Magno

BS Criminology 3A

FORENSIC 5

Digest these following cases involving the use polygraph examination:

1. People of the Philippines Vs Amado Daniel

- Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14 par. 3) –Disregard of rank, age, or sex, and dwelling PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.AMADO DANIEL alias "AMADO ATO"; G.R. No. L-40330 November 20, 1978; J. MUÑOZ
PALMA CASE SUMMARY: On September 20, 1965, Margarita Paleng while in the bus, Amado Daniel
came and molested her wherein even as Margarita tried to alight from him, he still followed her in the
boarding house where Margarita is temporary dwelling. From thereon, the crime of rape was
committed. CASE HISTORY: Court of First Instance of Baguio City convicted: Daniel guilty and sentencing
him to suffer reclusion temporal. He filed motion for reconsideration but denied ;hence, forwarded to
Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals 10th Division believed: Amado Daniel is guilty of the crime charged;
however, the sentence imposed to accused in the judgment appealed from is not in accordance with law
which is Republic Act No. 4111, providing that —The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua. Pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296, as
amended) provides that theSupreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases
involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. Thus, relegated to the
Supreme Court. Supreme Court believe and hold the view: The dispositive portion of the decision as
written and rendered is in accordance with the Constitution and the law; hence, Amado Daniel guilty of
rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

FACTS: -13 year old Margarita Paleng filed a complaint against Amado Daniel alias “Amado Ato” for the
crime of rape. -On September 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt. Province, arrived in Baguio City from
Tublay in a Dangwa bus. She was then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as she was a highschool
student at the Baguio Eastern High school. While she was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel
came and started molesting her by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the
latter and instead called the attention of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely shrugged off
by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused. -Despite the rain, she left the bus and
went to ride in a jeep parked some 100 meters away. The accused followed her and rode and sat beside
her. When Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by the accused.

- Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed
in and closed the door behind him. -He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, “If you
talk, I will kill you.” Because of her fear, Margarita fell silent. She was then forced to lie down with the
accused placing a handkerchief in her mouth and holding the dagger to her neck. -Her attempts to flee
were to no avail as she was only 4 ft and 8 inches tall and 95 lbs while Daniel was 5 ft, 7 inches tall and
weighed 126 lbs. -The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita. Thereafter she
lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had already gone. -For his defense, Daniel asserts that
he and Margarita have known each other since 1963 and this was in fact the second time he had carnal
knowledge of her. Also, he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and was actually surprised that
she filed the complaint against him. -Medico-Legal report by Dr. Perfecto Micu indicated that Margarita
was a virgin before the incident complained of. ISSUE: Whether or not a boarding house falls within the
definition of “dwelling” in the RPC? HELD: Yes. The boarding house falls within the definition of dwelling.

RATIO: The court explained that generally in a case of this nature, the evidence of the prosecution
consists solely of the testimony of the offended party. The declaration of the victim, who at the time of
the incident was a little less than 13 years of age, on the basis of which the trial court found the charge
of rape was duly established. Moreover, the issue being one of credibility, the Court find no cogent
reasons for discarding the findings of facts of the trial court which were sustained by the Court of
Appeals after the latter had examined the evidence as a result of which it certified the case to this Court.
Furthermore, Appellant assails the veracity of the testimony of the complainant. The court negates that
there could no possible motive a thirteen-year old girl barely in her teens has in fabricating a story that
could only bring down on her and her family shame and humiliation and make her an object of gossip
and curiosity among her classmates and the people of her hometown. It cannot be denied that a public
trial involving a crime of this nature subjects the victim to what can be a harrowing experience of
submitting to a physical examination of her body, an investigation by police authorities, appearance in
court for the hearing where she has to unravel lewd and hideous details of a painful event which she
would prefer to forget and leave it unknown to others. The Court also finds it preposterous in the
insinuation that this complaint was filed because appellant had not married the girl although he
promised to marry her. In the issue of dwelling, although Margarita was merely renting a bed space in a
boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term used in Art.
14 (3) RPC. The Court said that it is not necessary under the law, that the victim owns the place where
he lives or dwells. But he

a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect
and uphold. For all the foregoing the Court holds that the correct penalty is death pursuant to Art. 335
of the RPC. However, for lack of necessary number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be
applied. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: PREMISES CONSIDERED, We affirm the judgment of conviction of Amado
Daniel for the crime of rape as charged, and We sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and order him to indemnify Margarita Paleng by way of moral damages in the amount of
Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) and pay the costs. Decision Modified. SO ORDERED.

2. Case no. 92-781 for illegal possession of firearms, against Danilo J. Bajas

3. The subject case docketed as Civil Case No.91-3453 was filed by JESUSA REYES andCONRADO B. REYES
for sum of Moneyagainst Bank of the Philippine Islands,National Capital Region,Regional Trial Courtof
Makati, Branch 142, Metro Manila.

- THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,petitioner, vs.
JESUSA P. REYES and CONRADO B. REYES, respondents.
DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 29, 2002 as well as its Resolution2 dated February
12, 2003, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati,
Branch 142, in Civil Case No. 91-3453,3 requiring Bank of Philippine Islands (petitioner) to return to
spouses Jesusa P. Reyes and Conrado B. Reyes (respondents) the amount of P100,000.00 plus interest
and damages. The conflicting versions of the parties are aptly summarized by the trial court, to wit: On
December 7, 1990 at around 2:00 p.m., plaintiff Jesusa Reyes together with her daughter, Joan Reyes,
went to BPI Zapote Branch to open an ATM account, she being interested with the ongoing promotions
of BPI entitling every depositor with a deposit amounting to P2,000.00 to a ticket with a car as its prize
to be raffled every month. She was accommodated, in lieu of the bank manager Mr. Nicasio, by Cicero
Capati (Pats) who was an employee of the bank and in charge of the new accounts and time deposits
characteristically described as having homosexual inclinations. They were entertained by Capati and
were made to sit at a table occupied by a certain Liza.

Plaintiff informed Capati that they wanted to open an ATM account for the amount of P200,000.00,
P100,000.00 of which shall be withdrawn from her exiting savings account with BPI bank which is
account no. 0233-2433-88 and the other P100,000.00 will be given by her in cash.

Capati allegedly made a mistake and prepared a withdrawal slip for P200,00.00 to be withdrawn from
her existing savings account with said bank and the plaintiff Jesusa Reyes believing in good faith that
Capati prepared the papers with the correct amount signed the same unaware of the mistakes in
figures.

While she was being entertained by Capati, her daughter Joan Reyes was filling up the signature cards
and several other forms.

Minutes later after the slips were presented to the teller, Capati returned to where the plaintiff was
seating and informed the latter that the withdrawable balance could not accommodate P200,000.00.

Plaintiff explained that she is withdrawing the amount of P100,000.00 only and then changed and
correct the figure two (2) into one (1) with her signature super-imposed thereto signifying the change,
afterwhich the amount of P100,000.00 in cash in two bundles containing 100 pieces of P500.00 peso bill
were given to Capati with her daughter Joan witnessing the same. Thereafter Capati prepared a deposit
slip for P200,000.00 in the name of plaintiff Jesusa Reyes with the new account no. 0235-0767-48 and
brought the same to the teller's booth.

After a while, he returned and handed to the plaintiff her duplicate copy of her deposit to account no.
0235-0767-48 reflecting the amount of P200,000.00 with receipt stamp showing December 7, as the
date. Plaintiff and daughter then left
On December 14, 1990, Mrs. Jesusa received her express teller card from said bank. Thereafter on
December 26, 1990, plaintiff left for the United States (Exhs. "T", "U"- "U-1") and returned to Manila on
January 31, 1991 (Exhs. "V"-"V-1").

When she went to her pawnshop, she was made aware by her statement of account sent to her by BPI
bank that her ATM account only contained the amount of P100,000.00 with interest.

She then sent her daughter to inquire, however, the bank manager assured her that they would look
into the matter.

On February 6, 1991, plaintiff instructed Efren Luna, one of her employees, to update her savings
account passbook at the BPI with the folded deposit slip for P200,000.00 stapled at the outer cover of
said passbook. After presenting the passbook to be updated and when the same was returned, Luna
noticed that the deposit slip stapled at the cover was removed and validated at the back portion
thereof.

Thereafter, Luna returned with the passbook to the plaintiff and when the latter saw the validation, she
got angry. Plaintiff then asked the bank manager why the deposit slip was validated, whereupon the
manager assured her that the matter will be investigated into.

When no word was heard as to the investigation made by the bank, Mrs. Reyes sent two (2) demand
letters thru her lawyer demanding return of the missing P100,000.00 plus interest (Exhs. "B" and "C").
The same was received by defendant on July 25, 1991 and October 7, 1991, respectively.

The last letter prompted reply from defendant inviting plaintiff to sit down and discuss the problem. The
meeting resulted to the bank promising that Capati will be submitted to a lie detector test. Plaintiff,
however, never learned of the result of said test. Plaintiff filed this instant case.

Defendant on the other hand claimed that Bank of the Philippine Island admitted that Jesusa Reyes had
effected a fund transfer in the amount of P100,000.00 from her ordinary savings account to the express
teller account she opened on December 7, 1990 (Exhs. "3" to "3-C"), however, it was the only amount
she deposited and no additional cash deposit of P100,000.00 was made. That plaintiff wanted to effect
the transfer of P200,000.00 but the balance in her account was not sufficient and could not
accommodate the same. Plaintiff thereafter agreed to reduce the amount to be withdrawn from
P200,000.00 to P100,000.00 with plaintiff’s signature superimposed on said corrections; that the original
copy of the deposit slip was also altered from P200,000.00 to P100,000.00, however, instead of plaintiff
signing the same, the clerk-in-charge of the bank, in this case Cicero Capati, signed the alteration himself
for Jesusa Reyes had already left without signing the deposit slip. The documents were subsequently
machine validated for the amount of P100,000.00 (Exhs. "2" and "4").

Additional thoughts

As a student who studying polygraph as my idea for this cases we can apply the Chart marking because
is a procedure that plays a vital role. Neglecting the appropriate chartmarking procedure for a couple of
seconds may cause misinterpretations later on thatfurther result to tragic consequences. Simply failing
to punctually write the stimulusmarks on the paper chart that will cause misinterpretation of the
polygram. And also the Stimulus marks are short vertical lines (normally about 1/8 of an inch) placed
belowthe descending stroke of the cardio tracing denoting exactly the beginning and at theend of the
stimulus question.

The Basic law that provides legal sanctions covering criminal confessin is found in the1987 Constitutional
provision was further emphasized in other subsequent sections. RA No. 7438, otherwise known as the
law that defines the rights of the accuse undercustodial investigation must have to be observed during
criminal interrogation as partf the Miranda Doctrine.

REFERENCE :

COURSEHERO,2008(poeple of the Philippines Vs Amado Daniel).

Lawphil.ner, 2008(Civil Case No.91-3453 was filed by JESUSA REYES andCONRADO B. REYES).