[G.R. Nos. 116196-97. June 23, 1999.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO

ADOVISO, Defendant-Appellant.

RATIONALE:
American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when
offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one
accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its
introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.
32 The rule is no different in this jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Appellant, allegedly a member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit
(CAFGU), was originally charged with four unidentified persons who have,
however, remained at large. The information 3 charging appellant with the
Murder of Rufino Agunos under Criminal Case No. P-2079

That on or about the 18th day of February 1990 at about 8:00 o’clock [sic] in the
evening at Sitio Tan-agan, Barangay Casugad, Municipality of Bula, Province of
Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, while armed with assorted long firearms, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot one Rufino Agunos several times with said firearms hitting the
latter on the different parts of his body which were the direct and immediate
cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Rufino
Agunos.

That the crime complained of against the accused is not service connected.

Appellant Adoviso interposed alibi and denial as his defense.

Appellant claimed that he was a member of the CAFGU whose headquarters

was located in Barangay Palsong, Bula, Camarines Sur. At around 7:00 in the
evening of February 18, 1990, he was in Sitio Burabod, Palsong, about a
kilometer away from the CAFGU headquarters. He, together with Francisco
Bislombre, Benjamin Alina, Jr. and PFC Antero Esteron, had some drinks in the
store of Honoria Tragante until around 11:00 p.m.

Honoria Tragante and Francisco Bislombre corroborated appellant’s alibi. Antero

Esteron likewise testified that from 7:00 until past 11:00 that night of February 18,
1990, he and appellant had a drinking spree at the Tragante store. He distinctly
remembered that date because it was the fiesta of Balatan.

To support his denial, appellant presented Lt. Antonio Lopez, the deputy chief of
police and SPO2 Claro Ballebar of the PNP Bula Police Station. Lopez identified
a police certification 7 prepared by Pfc. Ramon N. Canabe to the effect that the
shooting incident was perpetrated "by unidentified armed men." Lopez said that
he (Lopez) was one of those who brought the victims to the hospital who were
then still conscious. The victims told him that they did not know who shot them or
why they were shot.

The defense offered in evidence the testimony of Ernesto A. Lucena, Polygraph

Examiner II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila, who
conducted a polygraph test on appellant. In Polygraph Report No. 900175, 8
Lucena opined that appellant’s "polygrams revealed that there were no specific
reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant" to the
investigation of the crimes.

On March 25, 1994, the trial court rendered a Joint Judgment finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of murder and disposing of
Criminal Case Nos. P-2079 and P-2080 as follows:

ISSUE:

WON the negative result of the polygraph test should be given weight to tilt the
scales of justice in favor of the accused.

RULING:

NO. A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously

measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that are
believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee’s conscious attempt to
deceive the questioner. 30 The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is
that a person who lies deliberately will have a rising blood pressure and a
subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the graph. 31
However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests
when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of
one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its
introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.
32 The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, 33 stating
that much faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not
conclusive. Appellant, in this case, has not advanced any reason why this rule
should not apply to him.

Appellant was therefore correctly adjudged guilty of two counts of Murder.

Treachery qualified the killings to murder. There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. 34 In other words, there is treachery when the attack on an
unarmed victim who has not given the slightest provocation is sudden,
unexpected and without warning. 35 The victims in this case were totally
unaware of an impending assault — Rufino was sleeping and Emeterio was
going down the stairs when they were shot.

WHEREFORE, the Joint Judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 144656            May 9, 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GERRICO VALLEJO Y SAMARTINO, accused-appellant.

RATIONALE:

DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which contains his or her
genetic code. Except for identical twins, each person's DNA profile is distinct and
unique.29

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or
from the victim's body for the suspect's DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the
suspect and the victim.30

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88,
Cavite City, sentencing Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino to death and ordering him to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages for the rape-slaying of a 9-year old child,
Daisy Diolola, in Rosario, Cavite on July 10, 1999.

The Information charging accused-appellant Gerrico Vallejo with the crime of

Rape with Homicide alleged:

"That on or about the 10th day of July 1999, in Barangay Ligtong I,

Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Trial Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with DAISY
DIOLOLA Y DITALO, a nine-year old child against the latter's will and
while raping the said victim, said accused strangled her to death."

"CONTRARY TO LAW."2

Accused-appellant was arraigned on July 26, 1999 and, with the assistance of
counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, whereupon trial ensued.

Ten (10) witnesses testified for the prosecution, namely, Ma. Nida Diolola, the
victim's mother; Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, medico-legal officer of the NBI; Atty. Lupo
Leyva; Mayor Renato Abutan of Rosario, Cavite; Atty. Sikat Agbunag of the
Public Attorney's Office; Pet Byron Buan, NBI Forensic Biologist; Aida Viloria-
Magsipoc, NBI Forensic Chemist; SPO1 Arnel Cuevas of the Rosario, Cavite
police station; and Jessiemin Mataverde and Charito Paras-Yepes, both
neighbors of the victim.

Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, Forensic Chemist of the NBI, conducted DNA tests on the
specimens collected by Dr. Vertido. She testified that the vaginal swabs of the
victim taken by Dr. Vertido during the autopsy contained the DNA profiles of
accused-appellant and the victim.16

The Regional Trial Court Convicted the accused-appelant.

ISSUE:

WON the DNA result is admissible in evidence. YES.

HELD:

DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which contains his or her
genetic code. Except for identical twins, each person's DNA profile is distinct and
unique.29

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or
from the victim's body for the suspect's DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the
suspect and the victim.30

The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists

between the evidence sample and the reference sample. 31 The samples
collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their
profile.32 The test may yield three possible results:

1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from
different sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no
further analysis or discussion;

2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether

the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a
variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some
aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be
repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive
result; or

3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same
source (inclusion).33 In such a case, the samples are found to be similar,
the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the
Similarity.34

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among others things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

In the case at bar, the bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of
accused-appellant, the smears taken from the victim as well as the strands of
hair and nails taken from her tested negative for the presence of human
DNA,35 because, as Ms. Viloria-Magsipoc explained:

Thus, it is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for examination, and not
the possibility that the samples had been contaminated, which accounted for the
negative results of their examination. But the vaginal swabs taken from the victim
yielded positive for the presence of human DNA. Upon analysis by the experts,
they showed the DNA profile of accused-appellant: 36

In conclusion, we hold that the totality of the evidence points to no other

conclusion than that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Evidence
is weighed not counted. When facts or circumstances which are proved are not
only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his
innocence, such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may surpass direct
evidence in its effect upon the court.37 This is how it is in this case.

G.R. No. 148220               June 15, 2005

ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner,
vs.
ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and
HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial
Court, Manila, respondents.

RATIONALE:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. 51]

FACTS:

This is a petition for review 1 to set aside the Decision2 dated 29 November 2000
of the Court of Appeals ("appellate court") in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. The
appellate court affirmed two Orders 3 issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila ("trial court") in SP No. 98-88759. The Order dated 3 February
2000 directed Rosendo Herrera ("petitioner") to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid
("DNA") paternity testing, while the Order dated 8 June 2000 denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.

On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old 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
respondent’s mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to

abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the
testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos was an
Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught Cell Biology.
She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences
Research Institute ("UP-NSRI"), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former
professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she
developed the Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular Biology. In her
testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and
asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing
paternity.4

Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained
acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his
right against self-incrimination.

The trial court granted the motion of the petitioner to undergo DNA paternity
testing in a laboratory of their common choice within a period of thirty (30) days
from receipt of the Order, and to submit the results thereof within a period of
ninety (90) days from completion. The parties are further reminded of the hearing
set on 24 February 2000 for the reception of other evidence in support of the
petition.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 3 February 2000 Order. He

asserted that "under the present circumstances, the DNA test [he] is compelled
to take would be inconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the
requisite specimen…, unconstitutional."

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.

ISSUE:

WON DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation.

HELD:

YES.

DNA Analysis as Evidence

DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic make-up.

DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person.
Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person’s DNA profile can determine his
identity.30

DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample

obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate a
pattern, or a DNA profile, for the individual from whom the sample is taken. This
DNA profile is unique for each person, except for identical twins. 31 We quote
relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with approval:

Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA (deoxyribonucleic

acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the rare occurrence of identical
twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and DNA is unchanging throughout life.
Being a component of every cell in the human body, the DNA of an individual’s
blood is the very DNA in his or her skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen,
samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or other body parts.

Probative Value of DNA Analysis as Evidence

Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial courts should be cautious
in giving credence to DNA analysis as evidence. We reiterate our statement
in Vallejo:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. 51]

We also repeat the trial court’s explanation of DNA analysis used in paternity
cases:

In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable
regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA
profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the
child’s DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been
inherited from the biological father. The alleged father’s profile is then examined
to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the
paternal types in the child. If the man’s DNA types do not match that of the child,
the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he
is not excluded as the father.52

It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the putative
father. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA
profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. For this
reason, following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction, 53 trial
courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of
Paternity ("W") prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the
likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random
match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population
database, such as the Philippine population database, is required to compute for
W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to
100%. However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father,
mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to those conducted
between the putative father and child alone.54

DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results
of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value
of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity.55 This
refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court

of Appeals dated 29 November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. We also
AFFIRM the Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000 issued by Branch
48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. SP-98-88759.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 172607               April 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appelle,

vs.
RUFINO UMANITO, Appellant.

RATIONALE:

Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be

contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of
Court).

The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the DNA testing
was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the
accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing
(Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-markings) nor presented evidence to rebut
the same.

FACTS:

In our Resolution dated 26 October 2007, this Court resolved, for the very first
time, to apply the then recently promulgated New Rules on DNA Evidence (DNA
Rules)1 in a case pending before us – this case. We remanded the case to the
RTC for reception of DNA evidence in accordance with the terms of said
Resolution, and in light of the fact that the impending exercise would be the first
application of the procedure, directed Deputy Court Administrator Reuben Dela
Cruz to: (a) monitor the manner in which the court a quo carries out the DNA
Rules; and (b) assess and submit periodic reports on the implementation of the
DNA Rules in the case to the Court.

To recall, the instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino
Umanito (Umanito) was found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La
Union, Branch 67 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Umanito
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
indemnify the private complainant in the sum of ₱50,000.00. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals offered the judgment of the trial court. Umanito appealed the
decision of the appellate court to this court.

ISSUE:

WON DNA evidence is an opinion of an expert witness which is admissible.

YES. With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, it can
now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of
AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We have pronounced that
if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged
victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his
acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least
weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing
appellant, AAA and her child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules),
which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed herein. 3

As earlier mentioned, DNA samples consisted of buccal swabs and blood

samples taken from the parties by the forensic chemists who adopted reliable
techniques and procedure in collecting and handling them to avoid
contamination. The method that was used to secure the samples were safe and
reliable. The samples were taken and handled by an expert, whose
qualifications, integrity and dedication to her work is unquestionable, hence, the
possibility of substitution or manipulation is very remote.

The procedure adopted by the DNA section, Forensic Chemistry Division of the
National Bureau of Investigation in analyzing the samples was in accordance
with the standards used in modern technology. The comparative analysis of DNA
prints of the accused Rufino Umanito and his alleged child is a simple process
called parentage analysis which was made easier with the use of a DNA
machine called Genetic Analyzer. To ensure a reliable result, the NBI secured
two (2) DNA types of samples from the parties, the buccal swabs as primary
source and blood as secondary source. Both sources were separately processed
and examined and thereafter a comparative analysis was conducted which
yielded the same result.

The National Bureau of Investigation DNA Section, Forensic Division is an

accredited DNA testing laboratory in the country which maintains a multimillion
DNA analysis equipment for its scientific criminal investigation unit. It is manned
by qualified laboratory chemists and technicians who are experts in the field, like
Mary Ann Aranas, the expert witness in the instant case, who is a licensed
chemists, has undergone training on the aspects of Forensic Chemistry for two
(2) years before she was hired as forensic chemists of the NBI and has been
continuously attending training seminars, and workshops which are field related
and who has handled more than 200 cases involving DNA extraction or collection
or profiling.

The accused did not object to the admission of Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of
their sub-markings. He did not also present evidence to controvert the results of
the DNA analysis.

Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.

DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation Forensic

Division on the buccal swabs and blood stained on FTA paper taken from [AAA],
[BBB] and Rufino Umanito y MillAres for DNA analysis to determine whether or
not Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological father of [BBB] gave the following
result:

"FINDINGS: Deoxyribonuncleic acid analysis using the

Powerplex 16 System conducted on the
above-mentioned, specimens gave the
following profiles;

xxx

xxx
There is a COMPLETE MATCH in all the fifteen (15) loci tested between the
alleles of Rufino Umanito y Millares and [BBB].

REMARKS: Based on the above findings, there is a

99.9999% Probability of Paternity that
Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological
Father of [BBB]"

Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be

contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of
Court).

The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the DNA testing
was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the
accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing
(Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-markings) nor presented evidence to rebut
the same.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the trial court rules that based on the result
of the DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, Forensic
Division, RUFINO UMANITO y MILLARES is the biological father of [BBB]. 10

Umanito’s defense of alibi, together with his specific assertion that while he had
courted AAA they were not sweethearts, lead to a general theory on his part that
he did not engage in sexual relations with the complainant. The DNA testing has
evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as testified to by AAA, Umanito had
fathered the child she gave birth to on 5 April 1990, nine months after the day
she said she was raped by Umanito.

Still, Umanito filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated 16 February 2009. By

filing such motion, Umanito is deemed to have acceded to the rulings of the RTC
and the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of the crime of rape, and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the
private complainant in the sum of ₱50,000.00. Given that the results of the Court-
ordered DNA testing conforms with the conclusions of the lower courts, and that
no cause is presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed below, the
Court sees no reason to deny Umanito’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal.
Consequently, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February
2006 would otherwise be deemed final if the appeal is not withdrawn.

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated 16 February 2009 is

GRANTED. The instant case is now CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 139070      May 29, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NOEL LEE, accused-appellant.

RATIONALE:

In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two

situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) as evidence of
the state of mind of the accused. 54 The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-
seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful
nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or
the accused was the aggressor.

FACTS:

On automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City,
Branch 127 in Criminal Case No. C-54012 (98), which sentenced accused-
appellant Noel Lee to death for the murder of Joseph Marquez.

On May 27, 1998, an Information was filed against accused-appellant charging

him with the crime of murder committed as follows:

"That on or about the 29th day of September 1996, in Kalookan City,

Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
and shoot one JOSEPH MARQUEZ y LAGANDI, with the use of a
handgun, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which
ultimately caused the victim’s death.

CONTRARY TO LAW."1

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: (a) Herminia Marquez, the mother of the
victim; (b) Dr. Darwin Corpuz, a resident doctor at the Manila Caloocan
University (MCU) Hospital; (c) PO2 Rodelio Ortiz, a police officer who examined
the crime scene; and (d) Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.

The prosecution established the following facts: At 9:00 in the evening of

September 29, 1996, Herminia Marquez, 46 years of age and her son, Joseph,
26 years of age, were in the living room of their house located at No. 173
General Evangelista St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The living room was
brightly lit by a circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. Outside their house was
an alley leading to General Evangelista Street. The alley was bright and bustling
with people and activity. There were women sewing garments on one side and
on the other was a store catering to customers. In their living room, mother and
son were watching a basketball game on television. Herminia was seated on an
armchair and the television set was to her left. Across her, Joseph sat on a sofa
against the wall and window of their house and the television was to his right.
Herminia looked away from the game and casually glanced at her son. To her
complete surprise, she saw a hand holding a gun coming out of the open window
behind Joseph. She looked up and saw accused-appellant Noel Lee peering
through the window and holding the gun aimed at Joseph. Before she could warn
him, Joseph turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, appellant
fired his gun hitting Joseph’s head. Joseph slumped on the sofa. Herminia stood
up but could not move as accused-appellant fired a second shot at Joseph and
three (3) shots more— two hit the sofa and one hit the cement floor. When no
more shots were fired, Herminia ran to the window and saw accused-appellant,
in a blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house. Herminia turned to her
son, dragged his body to the door and shouted for help. With the aid of her
neighbor and kumpare, Herminia brought Joseph to the MCU Hospital where he
later died.

Police investigators arrived at the hospital and inquired about the shooting
incident. Herminia told them that her son was shot by Noel Lee. From the
hospital, Herminia went to the St. Martin Funeral Homes where Joseph’s body
was brought. Thereafter, she proceeded to the Caloocan City Police
Headquarters where she gave her sworn statement about the shooting. 2

Upon request of the Caloocan City police, a post-mortem examination was made
on Joseph’s body. Dr. Rosaline O. Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the PNP
Crime Laboratory Service made the following findings:

"FINDINGS:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished male cadaver in rigor mortis with

postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body. Conjunctiva are
pale, Lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. A needle puncture mark was noted
at the dorsum of the right hand.

HEAD:

(1) Gunshot wound, frontal region, measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm, just
right of the anterior midline, 161 cm from heel, with an upbraded
collar, measuring 0.2 cm superiorly and laterally, 0.1 cm medially
and inferiorly directed posteriorwards, downwards and to the left
fracturing the frontal bone, lacerating the brain. A deformed slug
was recovered embedded at the left cerebral hemisphere of the
brain.

(2) Gunshot wound, occipital region, measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 2 cm

left of the posterior midline, 162 cm from heel, with a uniform 0.2
cm upbraded collar, directed slightly anteriorwards, downwards and
lateralwards, fracturing the occipital bone and lacerating the brain.
A deformed slug was recovered at the left auricular region.

(3) Contusion, right eyebrow, measuring 3 x 2 cm, 3 cm from the

anterior midline.

There are subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhages.

 Stomach is ¼ full of partially digested food particles and positive for
alcoholic odor.

CONCLUSION:

Cause of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds.

Head."3

Herminia filed a complaint for murder against accused-appellant. The complaint,

docketed as I.S. No. 96-3246, was however dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence in a Resolution dated December 4, 1996 by Prosecutor Dionisio C.
Sison with the approval of Caloocan City Prosecutor Rosauro J.
Silverio.7 Herminia appealed the order of dismissal to the Secretary of Justice. In
a letter dated March 16, 1998, Secretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III reversed
and set aside the appealed Resolution and ordered the City Prosecutor of
Caloocan City to file an information for murder against the accused-
appellant.8 Accordingly, the Information was filed and a warrant of arrest issued
against accused-appellant on June 8, 1998. On October 16, 1998, appellant was
arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Appellant is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal

cases pending against him in Caloocan City. He was charged with frustrated
homicide in 1984 and attempted murder in 1989. 9

For his defense, accused-appellant presented two witnesses: (a) Orlando

Bermudez, a neighbor; and (b) himself. He denies the killing of Joseph Marquez.
He claims that from 8:00 to 10:00 in the evening of September 29, 1996, he was
in his house located at 317 M. de Castro St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. He
was having some drinks with his neighbor, Orlando Bermudez, and his driver,
Nelson Columba. They were enjoying themselves, drinking and singing with the
videoke. Also in the house were his wife, children and household help. At 10:00
P.M., Orlando and Nelson went home and accused-appellant went to sleep. He
woke up at 5:30 in the morning of the following day and learned that Joseph
Marquez, a neighbor, was shot to death. To appellant’s surprise, he was tagged
as Joseph’s killer.10

Accused-appellant had known the victim since childhood and their houses are
only two blocks apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a
thief and drug addict. Six days before his death, on September 23, 1996,
accused-appellant caught Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo.
Joseph scampered away. As proof of the victim’s bad reputation, appellant
presented a letter handwritten by his mother, Herminia, addressed to Mayor
Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and sent through PO3 Willy Tuazon and his
wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, Herminia was surrendering her son to the Mayor
for rehabilitation because he was hooked on shabu, a prohibited drug, and was a
thief. Herminia was scared that eventually Joseph might not just steal but kill her
and everyone in their household because of his drug habit. 11

The accused-appellant likewise explained the two criminal cases filed against
him in 1984 and 1989. The information for attempted murder was dismissed as a
result of the victim’s desistance while in the frustrated homicide case, the real
assailant appeared and admitted his crime. 12

In a decision dated June 22, 1999, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty
and sentenced him to the penalty of death. The court also ordered appellant to
pay the heirs of the victim civil indemnity of P50,000.00, actual damages of
P90,000.00, moral damages of P60,000.00 and exemplary damages of
P50,000.00 and the costs of the suit.

ISSUE:

WON character evidence is admissible in homicide cases.

HELD:

YES. In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in

two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) as
evidence of the state of mind of the accused.54 The pugnacious, quarrelsome or
trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and
peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the
deceased or the accused was the aggressor. 55 When the evidence tends to
prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also
admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the
mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action
was necessary.56

In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to
determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not
alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-
defense. There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and
thievery with his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the
positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad
character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had
stolen, is pure and simple speculation.

Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of
murder committed with treachery and premeditation. In People v. Soliman,57 a
murder case, the defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative
character of the deceased. Upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court
disallowed the same. The Supreme Court held:

"x x x While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid

to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an
offense (Section 15, Rule 123),58 such is not necessary in the crime of
murder where the killing is committed through treachery or
premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in
homicide cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction
that a prompt defensive action was necessary (Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126). This rule does not apply to cases
of murder."59
G.R. No. 28871           September 19, 1928

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CLEMENTE BABIERA, JUSTO BABIERA and DOMINGA BORES, defendants-
appellants.

RATIONALE:

While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-
defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking
and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in the
community and not of isolated and specific acts (Underhill Criminal Evidence,
par. 325, p.570), such as the accused Clemente Babiera tried to prove, and
hence the lower court did not err in not admitting such proof.

FACTS:

This is an appeal taken by Clemente Babiera, Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores
from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding them guilty of the
crime of murder, the first as principal, and the last two as accomplices,
sentencing the former to life imprisonment with the accessories of article 54 of
the Penal Code, and each of the latter to fourteen years, eight months and one
day cadena temporal, with the accessories of article 54 and 59 of the Penal
Code, respectively, and all three to indemnify the family of the deceased
Severino Haro in the sum of P1,000 jointly and severally, and each of them to
pay one-third of the costs of the action in the justice of the peace court and the
Court of First Instance.

Justo Babiera was the owner of two parcels of land situated in the municipality of
Oton, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands. On October 19, 1922 Justo Babiera
executed a contract of sale with the right of repurchase in favor of Basilio
Copreros whereby he sold the two parcels of land to the latter for the sum of
P124 with the condition that if the vendor did not repurchase them on or before
August 1, 1923, the sale would become absolute and irrevocable (Exhibit F). The
period for repurchase having expired, Basilio Copreros took possession of said
two parcels of land, and on March 24, 1927, made application to the registrar of
deeds for the Province of Iloilo for the registration of the consolidation of his title
to said parcels. On the 26th of the said month, Basilio Copreros leased said
parcels to Severino Haro, municipal president of Oton (Exhibit G and G-1). In
view of this, on March 31, 1927, Justo Babiera filed a complaint against Basilio
Copreros in the justice of the peace court of Oton for the recovery of the
possession of said two parcels of land. The complaint having been dismissed on
April 19, 1927 on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action, Justo Babiera appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
(Exhibit M). Later on, said Justo Babiera asked for the dismissal of the complaint
for unlawful detainer and filed another one for the recovery of property (Exhibit
F). Inasmuch as Severino Haro was already in possession of the aforesaid two
parcels of land as lessee, he bore all the expenses in the case of unlawful
detainer as well as in that for recovery of the property.

On August 21, 1927, Severino Haro, as usual, went to visit his land in the barrio
of Bita, accompanied by Gregorio Torrija, Benito Carreon and Pedro Tauro. On
arriving there Fermin Bruces, his copartner on shares, told him that the day
before he had found Clemente Babiera's cow grazing on that land. It happened
at that moment Clemente Babiera and Dominga Bores were passing by.
Severino Haro then informed Clemente Babiera of what his cow had done on the
former's land and told him to take better care of his cow in future and not to let it
run loose. He then ordered Fermin Bruces to take the animal to where the
Babiera family lived. Severino Haro was not able to return to town until almost 7
o'clock in the evening. As it was already dark, he and his companions had to
make use of a torch made out of split bamboo to light them on their way.
Severino Haro went ahead, followed by Pedro Tauro, who carried the torch,
some 8 brazas behind, with Gregorio Torrija and Benito Carreon following. On
Coming to a place in the road near Rosendo Paycol's house, Clemente Babiera
suddenly sprang from the cogon grass, went after Severino Haro and struck him
with his bolo in the back. On turning his head to see who had attacked him
Severino Haro received another bolo blow in the forehead near the right
eyebrow. In trying to defend himself with his hand he was wounded between the
index finger and the thumb. He then tried to grasp his assailant but did not
succeed and he fell to the ground. Then Justo Babiera appeared and placing
himself upon Severino Haro's stomach, held the latter's hands. Later, Dominga
Bores appeared on the scene and held both knees of the wounded man. When
Justo Babiera arrived, a voice was heard saying: "Hold him, papa," and at the
same time, Severino Haro's voice was heard saying: "Help! help!" Pedro Tauro
wished to come near in order to help Severino Haro, but Clemente Babiera
raised his bolo in the air and kept on brandishing it to warn everybody off. Pedro
Tauro, in fear, stepped back, dropping the torch he carried. Not far from there
were also Buenaventura Gabalfin and Gregorio Paycol, who threatened to kill
Severino Haro's companions if they helped him. After the torch had been
extinguished they heard a voice which they recognized as Severino Haro's
saying: "Uncle Justo, have patience with me, for I have done no wrong." Then
they heard another voice, that of Dominga Bores, which said: "Here is the
revolver; let us return." Before the assailants left two or three revolver shots were
heard. When Severino Haro's companions saw that their assailants had already
departed, they drew near to where Severino lay stretched out to see what had
happened to him. Severino Haro told them not to fear for he did not feel as if he
were going to die, and calling his copartner on shares, Fermin Bruces, directed
him to bring a cot and take him to town. Pedro Tauro and Gregorio Torrija did as
Severino Haro wished, and on arriving at the barrio of Santa Monica, they by
chance came upon a truck in which were some policemen. They place the
wounded man in the same truck and took him to Saint Paul's Hospital in the City
of Iloilo. When Severino Haro was taken to the town he did not have his revolver
and the cartridge belt, without the holster, was found by Gregorio Torrija near
where the incident took place.

When Severino Haro was already in Saint Paul's Hospital he was examined by
Dr. Mariano Arroy, who issued a certificate stating that he found the following
wounds: Three on the right frontal regions; one on the right forehead taking in the
soft parts up to the auditory arch; on the right palmar arch; another on the left
arm; a deep one reaching down to the spinal column on the four slight wounds
on the right thigh; the ones on the forehead and the dorsal region being mortal of
necessity. All the wounds were caused, in the doctor's opinion, by a sharp-edged
and pointed weapon, and while the combatants were on the same plane, except
the wounds on the middle of the calf which must have been caused while the
assaulted party was on a lower plane than his assailant, and the wounds on the
right thigh, which must have been inflicted while the assailant was on a horizontal
plane.

On the same morning, August 22, 1927, and in the same hospital, Severino Haro
made a sworn statement before the deputy fiscal, Edmundo S. Piccio (Exhibit I),
relating the occurrence and mentioning the persons who were present. This
sworn statement was ratified by him before the same deputy fiscal on the 27th of
the said month and year when he had given up all hope of recovery.

In like manner there is no question that at about 7 o'clock in the evening of

August 21, 1927, when Severino Haro and his companions were returning to the
town of Oton, and upon their coming near Rosendo Paycol's house, in which
were Clemente Babiera, his father Justo Babiera, and his mistress Dominga
Bores, said Severino Haro had an encounter with Clemente Babiera in which
Severino Haro received several wounds in consequence of which he died a week
later in Saint Paul's Hospital of Iloilo.

ISSUE:

WON character evidence maybe used as defense by the accused.

HELD:

No. The defense also attempted to prove that Severino Haro was of a
quarrelsome disposition, provoking, irascible, and fond of starting quarrels in the
municipality of Oton, but the trial judge would not permit it.

While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-
defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking
and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in the
community and not of isolated and specific acts (Underhill Criminal Evidence,
par. 325, p.570), such as the accused Clemente Babiera tried to prove, and
hence the lower court did not err in not admitting such proof. But even if it had
been proved by competent evidence that the deceased was of such a
disposition, nevertheless, it would not have been sufficient to overthrow the
conclusive proof that it was the said accused who treacherously attacked the
deceased.

By virtue whereof, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, and it is held that
Justo Babiera and Dominga Bores are guilty of the crime of homicide as
accomplices and each sentenced to ten years and 1 day prision mayor, and to
pay the sum of P400 jointly and severally, and Clemente Babiera to pay the sum
of P600, the former to be subsidiarily liable for the latter's share, and the latter for
the former's share, payment to be made to the heirs of the deceased Severino
Haro, the appealed judgment being affirmed in all other respects with the
proportional costs against each. So ordered.