Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
vs.
FACTS:
Engr. Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary
Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu.
More than a month later, Mary B. Tagitis, Engr. Tagitis’s wife, file a Petition
for the Writ of Amparo with the Court of Appeals. The petition was directed
against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army;
Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Gen.
Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group
(CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police AntiCrime and
Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMMPNP;
and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, AntiTerror Task Force Comet [collectively
referred to as petitioners].
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ
of Amparo and set for hearing. On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its
decision71 confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an "enforced
disappearance" under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
ISSUE:
1. WON the evidence supporting the conclusion that Tagitis was abducted
was sufficient. 2.WON the respondent discharged the
burden of proving the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence.
RULING:
xxxx
In the seminal case of Velasquez Rodriguez, the IACHR took note of the
realistic fact that enforced disappearances could be proven only through
circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference; otherwise, it was
impossible to prove that an individual had been made to disappear. It held:
130. The practice of international and domestic courts shows that direct
evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of
evidence that may be legitimately considered in reaching a decision.
Circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so
long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.
Velasquez stresses the lesson that flexibility is necessary under the unique
circumstances that enforced disappearance cases pose to the courts; to
have an effective remedy, the standard of evidence must be responsive to
the evidentiary difficulties faced. On the one hand, we cannot be arbitrary
in the admission and appreciation of evidence, as arbitrariness entails
violation of rights and cannot be used as an effective countermeasure; we
only compound the problem if a wrong is addressed by the commission of
another wrong. On the other hand, we cannot be very strict in our
evidentiary rules and cannot consider evidence the way we do in the usual
criminal and civil cases; precisely, the proceedings before us are
administrative in nature where, as a rule, technical rules of evidence are
not strictly observed. Thus, while we must follow the substantial evidence
rule, we must observe flexibility in considering the evidence we shall take
into account.
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of
evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with
the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to
the most basic test of reason – i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced
evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this
basic minimum test.
The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced
disappearance within the meaning of this term under the UN Declaration
we have cited?
To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, we hold
that, as in Velasquez, we should at least take a close look at the available
evidence to determine the correct import of every piece of evidence – even
of those usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of
evidence – taking into account the surrounding circumstances and the test
of reason that we can use as basic minimum admissibility requirement. In
the present case, we should at least determine whether the Kasim
evidence before us is relevant and meaningful to the disappearance of
Tagistis and reasonably consistent with other evidence in the case.
The Kasim evidence assumes critical materiality given the dearth of direct
evidence on the above aspects of the case, as it supplies the gaps that
were never looked into and clarified by police investigation. It is the
evidence, too, that colors a simple missing person report into an enforced
disappearance case, as it injects the element of participation by agents of
the State and thus brings into question how the State reacted to the
disappearance.
Thus, it was only the inquiry from Col. Kasim that yielded positive results.
Col. Kasim’s story, however, confirmed only the fact of his custodial
investigation (and, impliedly, his arrest or abduction), without identifying
his abductor/s or the party holding him in custody. The more significant
part of Col. Kasim’s story is that the abduction came after Tagitis was seen
talking with Omar Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan, a "Balik Islam"
charged with terrorism. Mrs. Talbin mentioned, too, that Tagitis was being
held at Talipapao, Sulu. None of the police agencies participating in the
investigation ever pursued these leads. Notably, Task Force Tagitis to
which this information was relayed did not appear to have lifted a finger to
pursue these aspects of the case.
People vs Yatar
FACTS:
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen
may be used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction?
HELD
Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3)
years before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of Daubert
vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent. In the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled
that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be
used, so long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE.
EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis. Sec. 7 of the Rules on DNA
evidence, which took effect on 2007, provides for the factors to be
considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be given on
evidence derived or generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are, to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of
the samples;
Accordingly, it held that the DNA evidence is both reliable and relevant.
CONCLUSION:
FACTS:
On 14 May 1998, then thirteenyearold Rosendo Alba (respondent),
represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition
for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. On 7
August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he
denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied
physical contact with respondents mother. Respondent filed a motion to
direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings.
Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not
gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing
violates his right against selfincrimination.
ISSUE NO 1:
ISSUE NO 2:
Facts:
That on or about the 1st day of June, 2000, at about 6:30 in the
evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a .357 caliber Magnum
revolver S&W (Homemade), with treachery and evident premeditation, with
deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did then and there attack, assault and
shot one Jacinto T. Bayron, hitting him on his [sic] vital parts of his body,
thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries, as a consequence of which
said Jacinto T. Bayron died instantaneously.
The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of murder. Basing their claim
on the testimony of one witness which has identified the appellant And the
CA also affirmed in toto the RTC’s Decision. The appellant nonetheless
claims as his defense that his identity as the assailant was not proven with
certainty as no trace of gunpowder nitrates was found in his hand proven
by the paraffin test.
Issue:
Held:
Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved
extremely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can definitely establish is
the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand. It cannot be
established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates or nitrites
was the discharge of a firearm. The person may have handled one or more
of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for
nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,
pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such as peas, beans, and alfalfa.
A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his
hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of
tobacco. In numerous rulings, we have also recognized several factors
which may bring about the absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of
a gunman, viz: when the assailant washes his hands after firing the gun,
wears gloves at the time of the shooting, or if the direction of a strong wind
is against the gunman at the time of firing.
Facts
PabloAdoviso, and four JohnDoes, were tried for the MURDER of Rufino
Agunosand Emeterio Vazquez. Pablo Adoviso was positively identified by
Bonifacio Agunos,the son of one of the victims, because the former did not
wear a mask in the perpetration of the crime.
Aside from denial and alibi, the defense also offered in evidence the
testimony of ErnestoA.Lucena, Polygraph Examiner II of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila ,who conducted a polygraph test
on Adoviso. In Polygraph Report No.900175,Lucena opined that Adoviso’s
“ polygrams revealed that there were no specific reactions indicative of
deception to pertinent questions relevant ” to the investigation of the
crimes.
On the premise that the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction on
the basis of “mere
FACTS:
Sandra Salcedo at the time of the incident was a 15year old Mongoloid
and daughter of Lt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo. She had a
mind of a fiveyear old child, who still needed to be fed and dressed up.
Her vocabulary was limited and most of the time she expressed herself by
motions. Col. Teofisto Salcedo was then Provincial Commander of
Misamis Occidental. Four security men were assigned to him, two of whom
were accused Constable Ruel Prieto and accusedappellant Moreno
Tumimpad.
During the trial, the accused moved that a blood test, both "Major Blood
Grouping Test" and "Pheno Blood Typing" be conducted on the offended
party, her child Jacob and the two accused. The result of the test
conducted by the Makati Medical Center showed that Jacob Salcedo has a
type "O" blood, Sandra Salcedo type "B," accused Ruel Prieto type "A" and
accusedappellant type "O."
ISSUE:
W/N Moreno Tumimpad and Ruel Prieto are guilty of the crime of rape?
HELD:
the fact of paternity as they show only a possibility that the alleged father
or any one of many others with the same blood type may have been the
father of the child. WHEREFORE, accusedappellant's guilt of the crime of
rape having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the decision appealed
from is hereby AFFIRMED.
“I can do things you cannot, you can do things I cannot; together we can
do great things.” ~ Mother Teresa