Depending on the jurisdiction, a polygraph test might or might not be

admissible in court. State-by-state variations in polygraph admissibility are

one example. However, they can be broadly categorized into two groups:
those that find the test findings completely inadmissible and those that
permit them in court but only if they are provided with the parties' consent.
In other words, the latter group necessitates that both the accused and the
prosecution consent to the evidence's admission. Currently, 23 states still
allow polygraph exams to be used as evidence in court. The majority of
these states demand that both parties consent before they can be
submitted. However, some states consider polygraph tests to be
completely inadmissible, even if both parties consent to their use. For
instance, in the seminal case of Frye v. U.S. in 1923, the concept of court
cases using polygraph tests as a dependable form of evidence was
rejected. And in the Philippines polygraph results are not admissible as
evidence to the court. NBI says the they only relay to the polygraph as a
tool for investigation and to assist the police establish the timeline of events
prior to and following the crime. “A lie detector test is based on the theory
that an individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of being
monitored by sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling the truth.
The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test
inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.” People vs Carpo (GR
132676, April 4, 2001)