Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

Activity Content:

1 - 5. Give the process/procedure of presenting and examining a Medical Expert. Please elaborate on
each step.

* Use the case that was used for your October 27, 2023 Activity/case study (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ALIBEN, DIOSDADO NICOLAS, and RONNIE NICOLAS) to
answer the following:

6 - 10. You as a Prosecution Council, presenting Dr. Millena on direct examination, give 5 questions to
qualify the expertise of your witness. Justify each question.

11-13. Give 3 questions to your witness to validate the Necropsy Report allegedly issued by Dr.
Millena, explain why you asked each question.

14 -15. Based on the Necropsy Report how many defense wound is identified, why?

16 - 20. Identify the Court's Ruling that was based/related on the testimony of the Medical Witness
and/or on the Necropsy Report, please discuss each answer.

1 - 5. Give the process/procedure of presenting and examining a Medical Expert. Please elaborate on
each step.

* Use the case that was used for your October 27, 2023 Activity/case study (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ALIBEN, DIOSDADO NICOLAS, and RONNIE NICOLAS) to answer the
following:

1. Identify the Need for a Medical Expert Witness

• Determine if complex medical issues exist in the case that necessitate specialized
knowledge. If so, consider employing a medical expert witness.

2. Qualify the Expert

• Verify the expert's qualifications in court. For instance, in this case, the prosecution could
qualify Dr. Millena by exploring her medical education, experience as a forensic
pathologist, conducted autopsies, and any specific training in forensic pathology.

3. Retain a Medical Expert Witness

• Find and retain a suitable expert by seeking recommendations from legal professionals,
checking professional organizations, or conducting online searches matching the case's
medical requirements.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

4. Lay the Foundation for the Expert's Opinion

• Present evidence that allows the expert to form an opinion. In the mentioned case, the
prosecution could introduce the autopsy report and have Dr. Millena explain its findings
to lay the foundation for her opinion.

5. Prepare the Medical Expert Witness for Testimony

• Before court proceedings, thoroughly prepare the expert by providing relevant case
details, discussing expected testimony, and equipping them with necessary information.

6. Elicit the Expert's Opinion

• After laying the foundation, prompt the expert to provide their opinion based on case
facts and their expertise. For example, the prosecution could ask Dr. Millena to opine on
the victim's cause of death.

7. Present the Medical Expert Witness in Court

• Introduce the expert by administering an oath, stating their name, occupation,

qualifications, and providing a brief summary of their background and the scope of their
testimony.

8. Cross-Examine the Medical Expert Witness

• The opposing party has the opportunity to cross-examine the expert, challenging their
credentials, questioning their methods, and highlighting any inconsistencies in their
testimony. In the case, the defense could challenge Dr. Millena's interpretation of autopsy
findings and propose alternative causes of death.

6 - 10. You as a Prosecution Council, presenting Dr. Millena on direct examination, give 5 questions to
qualify the expertise of your witness. Justify each question.

1. Dr. Millena, can you describe your education, training, and experience in the field of pathology?

• This question is crucial to establish Dr. Millena's qualifications as a pathologist and demonstrate
her expertise. By probing into her educational background and training, it showcases her
knowledge and skills essential for accurate and reliable opinions in the case.

2. What is your professional training and experience in forensic pathology?

• This inquiry further solidifies Dr. Millena's experience in the specific field relevant to the case,
forensic pathology. It aims to specifically highlight her expertise and competence within this
specialized area of pathology.

3. How many autopsies have you conducted?

• This question aims to establish Dr. Millena's practical experience in performing autopsies,
providing a tangible measure of her hands-on involvement in cases similar to the one under
consideration.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

4. Have you published any articles or papers on forensic pathology?

• This query seeks to validate Dr. Millena's expertise by assessing her contributions to the field
through publications. It helps to gauge her involvement, research, and credibility within the
domain of forensic pathology.

5. What professional organizations do you belong to?

• This question focuses on Dr. Millena's affiliations with professional bodies related to forensic
pathology. It emphasizes her active participation in professional circles and showcases her
commitment to staying updated and engaged within her field of expertise.

11-13. Give 3 questions to your witness to validate the Necropsy Report allegedly issued by Dr. Millena,
explain why you asked each question.

Question 1: Dr. Millena, could you identify this document, please?

This inquiry holds pivotal significance in presenting the Necropsy Report as evidence. By
requesting the witness to identify the document, the prosecution aims to confirm the witness's
familiarity with the report and validate its authenticity.

Question 2: Were you personally responsible for preparing this Necropsy Report?

Query focuses on the creation of the Necropsy Report. By verifying that Dr. Millena herself
prepared the report, the prosecution establishes her direct involvement in examining the victim's
body and documenting the findings firsthand.

Question 3: Could you guide us through the autopsy findings outlined in this Necropsy Report?

This question provides Dr. Millena with the opportunity to elucidate the specific details of the
autopsy, facilitating a comprehensive comprehension of the victim's injuries and the determined
cause of death. It serves to underscore the meticulousness of the examination and the clarity of
information detailed within the report.

14 -15. Based on the Necropsy Report how many defense wound is identified, why?

14. According to the Necropsy Report, how many defense wounds are identified and why?

Based on the Necropsy Report, a total of three defense wounds have been identified. These
include two gunshot wounds to the chest and one knife wound to the abdomen. The cause of
death indicated in the report is attributed to exsanguination resulting from the gunshot wounds.

The identification of these defense wounds is grounded in the physical examination detailed in the
report and the interpretation of the autopsy findings. The presence of multiple injuries consistent
with a violent struggle strongly supports the conclusion that the victim was actively engaged in
self-defense at the time of their demise.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

The locations and nature of these wounds, specifically the victim facing the assailant when shot,
suggest a scenario where the victim attempted self-protection. Furthermore, these defense
wounds, typically found in areas used for shielding oneself, such as the arms or hands, exhibit
characteristics indicative of defensive actions—superficiality or less force compared to other
wounds.

The Necropsy Report likely contains detailed descriptions of these wounds, including specifics like
location, size, depth, and appearance, further reinforcing the interpretation of their defensive
nature. Ultimately, these findings significantly strengthen the prosecution's case, highlighting that
the victim was attacked and made efforts to defend themselves.

15. According to the Necropsy Report, how many defense wounds are identified and why?

As per the Necropsy Report, a total of three defense wounds have been identified. These consist
of two gunshot wounds to the chest and one knife wound to the abdomen. The report states
exsanguination resulting from the gunshot wounds as the cause of death.

The identification of these defense wounds is rooted in the physical examination conducted and
the detailed analysis of autopsy findings. The presence of multiple injuries consistent with a
struggle strongly suggests the victim was actively defending themselves during the fatal encounter.

These defense wounds typically manifest in areas used for defense, such as the arms, hands, or
forearms. They exhibit characteristics such as superficiality or lesser force, indicating attempts to
repel the attacker rather than engage aggressively.

The Necropsy Report likely outlines specific details about these defense wounds, including
location, size, depth, and appearance, further substantiating their defensive nature. Consequently,
these findings significantly support the prosecution's narrative that the victim was attacked and
actively defended themselves, thereby bolstering the case against the accused.

16 - 20. Identify the Court's Ruling that was based/related on the testimony of the Medical Witness
and/or on the Necropsy Report, please discuss each answer.

1. Established the cause of death of Juanito P. Bongon, Sr. The medical witness, Dr. Millena, testified
that Bongon's death was caused by multiple injuries, including a fatal stab wound to the chest.
This finding was supported by the necropsy report, which provided detailed medical
documentation of the injuries.

2. Confirmed the nature and extent of Bongon's injuries. Dr. Millena's testimony and the necropsy
report provided specific details about the type, location, and severity of Bongon's injuries. This
information was crucial in determining the manner in which Bongon was attacked and the force
used against him.

3. Corroborated the eyewitness accounts of the attack. The medical evidence provided independent
confirmation of the eyewitnesses' testimonies, which described a brutal assault with a bolo and
pieces of wood. This corroboration enhanced the credibility of the eyewitness accounts and
strengthened the prosecution's case.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

4. Supported the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for Bongon's death. The medical
evidence, combined with the other evidence presented by the prosecution, established a clear
connection between the appellants' actions and Bongon's death. This connection was essential
for proving the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Underscored the importance of expert testimony and scientific evidence in criminal proceedings.
The Court's reliance on the medical evidence highlighted the crucial role that expert witnesses
and scientific findings play in establishing the facts of a case, particularly in complex criminal
matters where the cause of death and the nature of injuries are critical elements.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

G.R. No. 140404

(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ALIBEN, DIOSDADO NICOLAS, and
RONNIE NICOLAS) .

Date: February 27, 2003

Facts:

The accused, Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas, and Ronnie Nicolas, were charged with two
separate crimes. In one instance, they were charged with kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal
detention for abducting Jesus delos Reyes and demanding a ransom from his family. In another
case, they were accused of attacking and killing Juanito P. Bongon, Sr., armed with a bolo and
pieces of wood, due to a longstanding feud.

Procedural History: The trial court found the accused guilty in the kidnapping case. On appeal, the
appellate court affirmed their conviction but reduced the sentence. The Supreme Court reviewed
the case and upheld the appellate court's decision. In the murder case, the prosecution presented
eyewitness testimony, a medical report, and a confession from one of the accused. The appellants'
defense of alibi was deemed not credible. They were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused committed the crimes
of kidnapping for ransom, serious illegal detention, and murder.

2. Credibility of the appellants' defense of alibi.

Ruling:

In the kidnapping case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts based on
credible testimony and evidence, solidifying the guilt of the accused. The prosecution effectively
established the accused's involvement in kidnapping Jesus delos Reyes and seeking ransom from
his family. Meanwhile, in the murder case, the Court found the prosecution's evidence to be
notably compelling. The combined weight of testimonies, a medical report, and the absence of a
credible alibi led to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution's case in both instances was robust, highlighting the insubstantial nature of the
appellants' alibi defense. The Court specifically underscored the coherence in testimonies and the
strength of evidence presented by the prosecution team.

In both the kidnapping and murder cases, the accused were found guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The kidnapping conviction was sustained while the murder case resulted in the accused
receiving a sentence of reclusion perpetua.

The Supreme Court's ruling in People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas, and
Ronnie Nicolas heavily relied on the medical witness, Dr. Millena, and the necropsy report. Dr.
Millena, who conducted the autopsy on the victim, Juanito P. Bongon, Sr., testified regarding the
extent of injuries and the cause of death. The necropsy report, authored by Dr. Millena,
corroborated his testimony, providing comprehensive medical documentation of the injuries.
Legal Medicine

Submitted by: Olaf Augustus A. Benosa

Submitted to . Dr. Rey Millena

The Court deemed Dr. Millena's testimony credible and convincing, attributing significance to his
expertise as a medical professional and his direct examination of the victim's body. Additionally,
the necropsy report was considered a reliable and impartial source of medical evidence.

Relying on the testimony of the medical witness and the necropsy report, the Court established
that Juanito P. Bongon, Sr., died due to multiple injuries inflicted by Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado
Nicolas, and Ronnie Nicolas. This crucial finding was pivotal in determining the guilt of the accused,
upholding the murder conviction.

The Court's reliance on medical evidence underscores the pivotal role of expert testimony and
scientific findings in ascertaining facts, especially in criminal proceedings where accuracy and
impartial evaluation of evidence are paramount for justice to prevail.