People v.

Tranca Facts: Accused Carlos Tranca y Arellano was charged with the violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The accused denied the allegations against him and contended that he was framed by the police officers. On 23 March 1993, the trial court promulgated its decision finding the accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P30,000.00. The accused appealed the decision to this Court. He asseverates that the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor was not overcome by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense further contends that the rights of the accused against self-incrimination was violated when he was made to undergo an ultraviolet ray examination and also argues that Chief Chemist Teresita Alberto failed to inform the accused of his right to counsel before subjecting him to the examination. Issue: 1. W/N the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2. W/N the right of the accused against self-incrimination was violated when he was made to undergo an ultraviolet ray examination. Decision: After assiduously going over the appellants brief and the records of this case, we find no reason to overturn the trial courts judgment of conviction. 1. The trial court found the testimony given by the prosecution witnesses to be more credible and logical. It said that the prosecution witnesses "testified candidly and in a straightforward manner that exuded all the marks of truthfulness." Long settled in criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellant courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. We do not find any such oversight on the part of the trial court. 2. What is prohibited by the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness, not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. Stated otherwise, it is simply a prohibition against his will, an admission of guilt. Nor can the subjection of the accuseds body to ultraviolet powder be considered a custodial investigation so as to warrant the presence of counsel.

Dulla vs. Court of Appeals (326 SCRA 32) Facts: An information for rape was filed against Nicanor Dulla. During the trial, it was established that three year old Andrea Ortega came home crying with bruises on her thighs saying that his uncle showed his penis to her. In her own words she said inaano ako ni uncle while doing a pumping motion on her lower body. The medical report on Andrea showed that her hymen was still intact. Based on the foregoing evidence, the trial court found petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness and not of rape. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness and if so, whether or not he should be convicted for the said crime even though the information alleged against him is for rape? Decision: Yes. The trial court correctly convicted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness. Andrea told the court that petitioners penis was never inserted in her vagina, nor was there even a touching of her external organ by petitioners penis. There

could, therefore, be no rape. Andrea Ortega recounted the event while she was on witness stand andwas given full credence by the trial court. The lewd design of petitioner is evident and, although the information filed was for the crime of rape, he can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the latter is necessarily included in rape. CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. DUNGO [199 SCRA 860 (1991) Facts Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified that sometime in February 1987, the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR. The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense: Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalinos wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always, maltreating their children when he was not used to it before. There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in truth they were not. Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the trial court dated Aug. 17, 1987. Issue: WON the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged. Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that he acts w/o the least discernment and that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the act. However, it is also permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a reasonable period before and after the time of the act in question. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts.

People vs de Dios 187 SCRA 228 Facts: The complainant, Concepcion Guanzon and the accused, Eduardo De Dios, were sweethearts. On March 22,1973, the accused abduct and brought the complainant to Baguio City and there, raped her.The accused pleaded not guilty. The complainant testified in a forthright manner and her testimony to the manner she was raped by the accused was supported by documentary and testimonial evidence. The accused did not take the witness stand to expalin his side or contradict the complainant's testimony. Issue: Whether or not the refusal od the accused to take the witness stand be taken against him Ruling: No. The failure or refusal of an accused to take the witness stand cannot be taken against him. For an accused has the right to remain silent and no adverse inference shall be drawn against him. Besides settle is the rule that in order to gain conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence rather than the weakness of the defense. In the instant case, the court is satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

People vs Erardo GR No. 119368, Aug. 18, 1997 Facts: Accused-appellant Marcelino "Senoy" Erardo was charged with the crime of rape. He allegedly raped Julie Ann Kiam,a 12 yr old retardate. The prosecution presented the ff witnesses:Jennelyn Cordero(victim's aunt),Mrs. Delia Kiam (victim's mother), dr. Hurley delos reyes(a dr who examined the victim),dr. Ray sague(resident physician od NCMH in Mandaluyong City), and the victim herself. Dr. Ray testified that the victim, julie ann, suffers mental retardation & hadin fact, the mentality of a 3 yr old child. The defense on the otherhand, presented Zosimo erardo(accused's brother) &the accused himself.the RTC rendered a

decision convicting the wccused-appellant of the crime of rape. The court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of the victim, julie ann kiam herself. Issue: WON julie ann kiam, a mental retardate is a competent witness Held: The SC AFFIRMED the RTC's decision. The fact that the victim in this cqse is a mental retardate is no consequence, as it is a settled rule that a mental retardate for that reason alone, is not disqualified from being a witness. This Court likewise held that a mental retardate who has the ability to make perceptions known to others, is a competent witness.

Philippine National Bank v. Uy Teng Piao 51 Phil 337 Facts: The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment in favor of PNB against defendant secured by the mortgaged property but absolved the latter. The defendant brought the action to the Supreme Court and alleged that he waived his right to redeem the land in consideration of an understanding between him and the bank. Their agreement is that the bank would not collect from the defendant the balance of the judgment. One of the plaintiffs attorneys testify against the defendant. Issue: Whether or not the testimony of plaintiffs attorney may be admitted as evidence Held: The Supreme Court ruled that although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a case, the court prefers that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and for that they should withdraw from handling the case.