People of the Philippines vs Whisenhunt

GR No. 123819 November 14, 2001

Facts: That on or about September 24, 1993, in the municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the above named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of superior strength, attack, assault and use personal violence
upon the person of one Elsa Santos-Castillo by then and there stabbing her with a bladed weapon in different parts of
her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death and
thereafter outraged or scofted her corpse by then and there chopping off her head and different parts of her body. The
medico-legal officer, found contusions on accused-appellant’s left periumbilical region, right elbow, left and right
forearms and right leg. Dr. Ronaldo Mendez, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy, concluded that the
cause of death of Elsa were stabbed wounds. Respondent, Whisenhunt as his witness his lawyer who is also a medico-
legal officer.

Issue: Whether or not the testimony of respondent’s presented witness as a lawyer-witness will be given.

Held: No. Accused-appellant makes capital of the fact that the medico-legal officer, Dr. Mendez, did not examine the
pancreas of the deceased notwithstanding Demetrio’s statement that according to accused-appellant, Elsa died of
“bangungot”, hemorrhage of the pancreas, because of this accused-appellant insist that the cause of death was not
adequately established. Then, he relied on the controverting testimony of his witness, lawyer-doctor, Ernesto Brion,
who was himself a medico-legal officer of the NBI for several years, to the effect that the autopsy report prepared by
Dr. Mendez was unreliable and inconclusive. The trial court, however, noted that Dr. Brion was a biased witness
whose testimony cannot be relied upon because he entered his appearance as one of the counsel for the accused-
appellant and, in such capacity, extensively cross-examined Dr. Mendez accused-appellant counters that there’s no
prohibition against lawyers giving testimony. Moreover, the trial court’s ruling would imply that lawyers who testify
on behalf of their clients are presumed to be lying.

By rejecting the testimony of Dr. Brion, the trial court did not mean that he perjured himself on the witness stand.
Notably, Dr. Brion was presented as expert witness. His testimony and the questions propounded on him dealt with
his opinion on the probable cause of death of the victim. Indeed the presentation of expert testimony is one of the
well-known exceptions to the rule against admissibility of opinions in evidence. In like manner, Dr. Mendez was
presented on the stand to give his own opinion on the same subject. His opinion differed from that of Brion, which is
not at all unusual. What the trial court simply did was to choose which — between two conflicting medico-legal
opinions – was the more plausible. The trial court correctly lent more credence to Dr. Mendez’s testimony not only
because Dr. Brion was a biased witness, but more importantly, because it was Dr. Mendez who conducted the autopsy
and personally examined Elsa’s corpse up close.

Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy
evidence.

People of the Philippines vs Larrañaga

GR No. 138874-75 February 3, 2004

Facts: On July 16, 1997 at about 10 o’clock more or less in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the said accused all private individuals, conniving, confederating and mutually
helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully and feloniously kidnap or deprive Marijoy
Chiong and Jacqueline Chiong, of their liberty and on the occasion thereof, and in connection, accused, with deliberate
intent, did then and there have carnal knowledge against them with the use of force and intimidation and subsequent
thereto and on the occasion thereof, accused with intent to kill did then and there inflict physical injuries and threw
Marijoy into a deep ravine which caused her death.

Issue: Whether or not witness who is also one of the perpetrators is a credible witness for the crime charged.
Held: Yes. Rustia positively identified the appellants. The settled rule is that positive identification of an accused by
a credible as the perpetrator of the crime demolishes alibi, the much abused sanctuary of felons. Rusia’s testimony
was corroborated by several disinterested witnesses who also identified the appellants. Most of them are neither
friends, relatives nor acquaintances of the victim’s family. As we received closely the transcript of stenographic notes,
we could not discern any motive on their part why they should testified falsely against the appellants. In the same
vein, it is improbable that the prosecution would tirelessly go through the rigors of litigation just to destroy innocent
lives.

Lejano vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 176389 December 14, 2010

Facts: On June 30, 1991, Estrelita Vizconde and her daughter Carmela nineteen and Jennifer seven were brutally slain
at their home in Parañaque City. Following an intense investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, some of
whom gave detailed confessions. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them discharged. Thus,
the identities of the real perpetrators remained a mystery especially to the public whose interest were aroused by the
gripping details of what everybody referred to as the Vizconde massacre. Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) announced that it had solved the crime. It presented star witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its
informers, who claimed ghat she witnessed the crime. She pointed to the accused Herbert Jeffrey Webb, Antonio
“Tony Boy” Lejano, Artemio Dong Ventura, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Pyke Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel
Ging Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She also tagged police officer Gerardo Biong as an accessory after the
fact. Relying primarily on Alfaro’s testimony, on August 10, 1995, the public prosecutors filed an information for
rape with homicide against Webb etal. The prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness with the others
corroborating her testimony. These included the medico-legal officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, the
security guard of Pitong Daan subdivision, the former laundry-woman of the Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s
former girlfriend, and Lauro Vizconde, Estrelita’s husband.

Issue: Whether or not failure to conduct a DNA test on the semen specimen found on Carmela is a ground for Webb’s
acquittal.

Held: No. The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and, consistent with this, semen specimen
was found in her. It is true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony, as Carmela’s rapist and killer but serious
questions had been raised about her credibility. At the very least, there exist a possibility that Alfaro had lied. On the
other hand, the semen specimen was taken from Carmela cannot possibly lie. It cannot be coached or allured by a
promise of reward or financial support. No two persons have the same DNA finger print, with the exception of identical
twins. If, on examination, the DNA of the subject specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela.
It is that simple. Thus, the court would have been able to determine that Alfaro committed perjury in saying that he
did. Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for failure of the state to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For
one thing, the ruling in Brady vs Maryland that he cites his no longer long been overtaken by the decision in Arizona
vs Youngblood, where the US Supreme Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen
specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the
prosecution or the police. Here, the state presented a medical expert who testified on the existence of the specimen
and Webb in fact, sought to have the same subjected to DNA test.

For another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did
not yet have the technology for conducting the test and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility
as evidence.